Re: [tied] PIE Word Formation (2)

On 2006-03-30 20:31, Patrick Ryan wrote:

> This is, by far, the most objectionable theorization I have seen on
> this list from Piotr, who is normally much more discriminating in
> his suggestions.

Every dog must have his day. With so many crazy ideas tossed to and fro
on this forum, why shouldn't I have some fun as well?

> There is absolutely no proof and not even any persuasive indication
> that PIE *o _ever_ became PIE *u, under any circumstances: *o does
> not become *w; and *o does not become *u. This is pure fantasy.

The credit for this theory goes to Olsen and Rasmussen -- I merely
accept their findings. For example, the *-to-/*-tu-/*-ti- hierarchy has
already been discussed and re-discussed on Cybalist. If you want another
rehearsal of the evidence, be my guest, but you can find it all in the
list archives.

> This is no proof and not even any persuasive indication that PIE
> -*ró _ever_ was "dissimilated" to -*ó, under any circumstances.
> Dissimilate to *Ø??? Is that what "dissimilate" means??? Pure fantasy!

*-ro- losing its *-r- because there is another liquid in the adjacent
syllable is pure fantasy? It's called dissimilatory loss, like <library>
becoming "lib'ary" or <secretary> "seck'etary". To quote H.H. Hock
(_Principles of Historical Linguistic_, in the section devoted to
dissimilation), "the only process which could be considered a 'complete'
dissimilation is _dissimilatory loss_..."

> PIE -*u/*ú (from -*w) is an affix that is unrelated to -*ó
> (plurality) or -*ró (high degree); and has a totally different
> significance: it provides the idea of definite but limited
> repetition and successfully completed activity so that *kr.t-ú would
> primarily mean 'empowered, provided with power'.

And who's talking about pure fantasy? Adjectival *-ú- and *-ró- are
absolutely isofunctional.

Piotr