Re: [tied] -phóros, -phorós, -fer

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

>
> On 2006-04-06 13:02, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > Gk phóros "a carrying"
> > Gk phorós "a carrying (person), a carrier"
> >
> > Latin -fer "a carrying (person, object)"
> >
> > The two first are recognised to be related; phorós is an

adjective

> > derived from the noun phóros.
>
> Not quite. The adjective is more fundamental. <pHóros> is zero-

derived

> with stress retraction.

I just discovered that I said that myself later on. So much for
consistency.

>However, actually, *pHorós did not survive as an
> independent word in Greek, and in compounds we have <-

pHóros> 'carrier'

> with penult accent (but that's a Greek accentual innovation).
>

Yes, it should be N *´-bh&r-&s, G *-bh&r-ós, right?

> > But phóros is thematic, and adjectives
> > in -ós are supposedly derived from athematic nouns.
>
> So it would seem.
>
> > The noun -fer is athematic.
>
> Um... Not _Latin_ -fer. It's as thematic as Gk. -pHóros. Latin has

a

> rule which deletes the ending -us after -r- (as in <puer>). It's

m.

> fru:gi-fer (pl. fru:gi-feri:), f. fru:gi-fera, n. fru:gi-ferum
> 'fruit-bearing'.

My ears are red.

> > So it was once N *bhér-&s (or
> > *´-bh&r-s), G *bh&r-ós.
> >
> > The noun -fer (etc) does not occur outside of compounds.
>
> So far you haven't shown that a root noun like *bHer- occurs in

compounds!

Hm. I will now declare it did, by fiat. I think it should be there.
The adjective has to come from somewhere.

> > But since
> > it is originally identical to Gk phóros and phorós, those two

latter

> > have their /o/'s from the fact that they can occur as

independent

> > words (but often they don't).
>
> So independent words get /o/'s? Why?
>

Because it's *re-stressed*.

N *´-bh&r-os -> N *bhór-os

My idea is that the ablaut vowel was proto-proto-IE *a, which -> *e
when stressed, -> *& when unstressed. So far, so standard. However,
if stress after this stage was moved and landed on a *&, it turned
into *o. *o's are thus the ablaut vowel (which was *a) in a re-
stressed stage.
For all three vowels
PPIE *a -> PIE *e (stressed), *& (unstressed), *o (restressed)
PPIE *i -> PIE *ey (stressed), *i (unstressed), *ey (restressed)
PPIE *u -> PIE *ow (stressed), *u (unstressed), *ow (restressed)

in some languages generalised (under Semitic 'Atlantic' influence?)
from the *a reflexes to

PPIE *a -> PIE *e (stressed), *& (unstressed), *o (restressed)
PPIE *i -> PIE *ey (stressed), *i (unstressed), *oy (restressed)
PPIE *u -> PIE *ew (stressed), *u (unstressed), *ow (restressed)

(not Italic, it has no *ew)

Voila ablaut without the 'single vowel' problem.


Torsten