Re: [tied] Retroflex Series in PIE

On 2006-08-08 08:10, Sean Whalen wrote:

> Since some languages distinguish between final *-er
> and *-r but Hittite doesn't

Which languages show an athematic neuter with final *-er for 'feather'?

> it shows nothing about the
> PIE form. Other aspects of "feather, fly, etc" need
> to be explained.

What aspects, namely?

>>> and *gWertí- "act of consumption".
>> What particular cognate set points to such a
>> reconstruction?
>
> It's not my reconstruction;

Well, whose is it? I don't recognise it as a valid reconstruction at all.

> I had *t. > *R. in this
> word below.
>
> borá: 'food' Gk; vora:re 'to devour' Lat

These are unproblematically derived from PIE *gWerh3- (present stem
*gWr.h3-é/ó-, cf. Ved. giráti). Greek has a number of expected
zero-grade derivatives with brô:- < *gWr.h3- before a consonant, while
<borá> and <borós> (<-bóros> '-devouring' in compounds, = Lat. -vorus)
reflect the "standard" O-fixed derivatives *gWorh3-áh2 and gWorh3-ó-s.

> gerti 'to drink' Lith (not *girti), etc.

This is a secondary athematic present replacing, in Baltic, an older one
of the tudáti-type. The Lithuanian tone is acute, betraying a lost
laryngeal (as if from *gWérh3-ti for inherited *gWr.h3-é-ti, the latter
preserved e.g. in Slavic *z^Ir-oN 'I devour').

> gWet.tós 'swallowed, noun'
> gWet.t.ós
> gWet.ós
> gWeR.ós

The actual deverbal adjective in *-tó- can be seen in Gk. bro:tós and
Lith. gi`rtas, both regularly derived from *gWr.h3-tó-

> Then in Greek o>u/gW_r etc; e>o there (and more).
>
> In Latin somewhat the same; *vora: forms verb.
>
> Since d. > r. and t. > R. after er. > r., and so on,
> there is no r, > ir in Lithuanian and similar
> languages (so *gWeR.tí- > gerti).

<borá> is the same formation as <tomé:> < *tomh1-áh2. Both the o-grade
and the final accent are expected in the whole type and don't require
any special explanation.

Piotr