--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2006-08-18 00:43, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > Viewing all these exceptions, could we imagine that finally this
> > root was *h1eh2p- and 'a derived' form *h1h2ep- could be the
source
> > of Latin a in ap-i:scor, ap-tus as < PIE *h1h2p- (*h1h2p-tó-
etc...
> > (a nil-grade of *h1h2ep- )
>
> How on earth can you get *h1h2ep- as a "derived" form of *h1eh2p-?
> Laryngeals can't be paraded to and fro like this. Even those who
believe
> in "laryngeal metathesis" restrict its scope to the combinations
*CHiC
> and *CHuC > *CiHC, *CuHC, and only unidirectionally (NOT *CiHC >
*CHiC).
>
> Sequences like *HHC typically lost one of the larygeals (most
likely the
> middle one, it seems) already in PIE, hence *h2sté:r 'star' from
> *h2ah-s- 'glow' and the loss of *h1 in the desiderative suffix *-
h1s-
> after some consonants (including laryngeals).
A root HeHC is ok from a PIE point of view (see Skt. a:pí- m. `friend'
Grk. he:pios `friendly' < *H1eH1p-i-)
But thanks a lot again: I hope that I understood your concerns
regarding the fact that "laryngeal metathesis is impossible in this
configuration" (I will try to follow this rule as much as possible)
On the other hand, I don't think that what I presented is 'so stupid'
(not in relation with my person because I don't have frustrations to
accept a stupidity on my side, but in relation to the facts here, and
all the issues generated by a *h1ep- root (that is the best possible
one until now, I agree too on this)...
But the problem is that with a root *h1ep- we still need to better
account for:
1. the alternance a/e in Hittite forms epzi/ appanzi
2. The Latin api:scor, Latin aptus etc... as from *h1p- (that is
not regular, as yourself have explained me) together with the need to
explain the long e: in Latin co-e:pi: (see Lubotsky cognates on
Leiden)
3. the long a: in Skt. a:pnoti, etc...
4. the Albanian jap/jep forms ('usually' the regular outputs of a
accented short e) versus Albanian ap/(g.)nap forms
(forcing 'everybody' starting with Pedersen to talk about an non-
etymological "j")
I mean: too many exceptions 'in the same time' related to the same
supposed root *h1ep- => so maybe is better to think that there
was 'something else' behind.
> As far as I can see, *h1eh2p- solves no problems and creates new
ones.
> We would expect lots of *a:p- derivatives, for example, and I can
see none.
>
> Piotr
See Skt. a:p- (a:pnóti etc...) as one possible example of a possible
*h1eh2p-
or do you have another explanation related to the long a: there?
Marius