[tied] Re: PIE Word Formation (2)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> On 2006-04-03 17:45, Rob wrote:
>
> > Hmm. With all due respect, I fail to see how a full vowel could
> > reappear after it had been lost. Perhaps this is shortsightedness
> > on my part, however -- if so, please let me know.
>
> It was unaccented, perhaps qualitatively reduced to some kind of
> schwa, but not yet lost completely. *per-tó- ([p&r-tó-]?) -->
> *pér-to- > *pér-tu-.

I think it would be more likely for a schwa to be maintained between
two stops (e.g. *pekW-tó- > *p&kWtó-) than between a stop and a
resonant. To me, it seems like what you posit above is really just a
means to try to explain why the accent shifted.

> > To me, this does not necessarily follow. Could it be possible, at
> > least, for the form in question to derive from *krt-ó-?
> > Obviously, the *-tó- participle cannot be used here, for we would
> > then see *krstó- in IE outside of Indo-Iranian.
>
> I prefer the *-ró- solution, since it involves forms whose structure
> I can understand. I don't know what kind of thing *krt-ó- would be.

Well, if there was an old root noun *kerts, or *krets, the genitive
form would be *krtós. However, I do see it being possible that
*krtrós became *krtós with dissimilatory loss.

> > How likely do you think it is that the speakers would be aware of
> > the "underlying vocalism of the root"?
>
> I mean they would have known where the vowel should be inserted. One
> obvious possibility (see above) is that the vowel slot wasn't quite
> empty yet, so that the potential zero grades *kr&t- and *k&rt- were
> not homophonous, though eventually they merged as *kr.t-.

I suppose that could be true, if the full vowel and schwa were still
perceived to be stress-conditioned allophones of each other.

> > I'm afraid I cannot respond to this effectively without more
> > information. If I may ask, where are the different forms
> > attested?
>
> The sequence is hypothetical, but the various forms are rather
> well-known. I have no direct evidence for an original contrast
> between older *déiw-o- and zero-derived *deiw-ó-, but I can't think
> of a better way of accounting for the latter (RV devá-). Old Indic
> went even further in multiplying derived forms: RV devyá- 'divine
> power' (derived from <devá-> and vr.ddhied <dáivya> 'divine, typical
> of the gods' (with yet another accent shift!).

Thanks for the info! It seems that the situation in Old Indic was
convoluted indeed. Admittedly, I had not factored vrddhi into the
equation. The forms _devá-_ and _devyá-_, with full vocalism (be it
*e or *o), suggest recency within IE. Vrddhi is another story
altogether. Do you think that the form _dáivya_ was inherited from IE
itself or is a later innovation?

- Rob