Re: A loose thought on present n-infix, ablaut

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>
>
> > present stem:
> > *XADV- > *XandV- > (syllabification) *Xan-dV- > *Xen-dV-
> >
> > perfect stem:
> > *XAD > *Xand > (syllabification) *Xand > *Xãd > *Xõd > *Xod
> >
> > which would explain both the present infix and ablaut, which is
> > nice. Obviously, both would have to have been reinterpreted as
> > morphological processes and generalised to other stems, but such

has

> > happened before
> >
>
> Come to think of it, if open vs. closed syllable determines e-

grade vs.

> o-grade, that would explain the appearance of o-grade in

causatives:

> *mon-eye/o- etc (still assuming that the pure stem is a nominal

form,

> participle or the like (and perfective?), of the verb).

Comment: because *mon was then an indendent word, and the syllable
boundary followed the word boundary.

>

And, while I'm at it: I can't very well claim that prenasalised
consonants caused ablaut before them without claiming nasals did
too. Two examples come to my rescue:

nom. sg. -o: (< *-õ: < *-on < *-an, sez I)
obl. -inV- (< *-enV- < *-e-nV- < *-anV-, sez the same source)
and
1st sg thematic -o: (*-õ: < *-om < *-am)
1st sg athematic -mi (*-&mi < *-a-mi < *-ami)

That -en-/-õ ablaut is beginning to look interesting.


Torsten