--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2006-08-30 00:41, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > You got that right. I'm trying to explain an ablaut variant and
> > you are declaring there is nothing to explain.
>
> I'm doing nothing like that. I'm just referring to Jens's theory
that
> the O-fix does NOT derive from the root vowel historically, and so
is
> NOT its ablaut variant.
>
If so, you need to define all the contexts where O-fix could appear
in order to really demonstrate this assumption.
Otherwise unfortunately it remains only a supposition.
As for another example : the verbal n-infix was 'initially'
considered as a metathesis of the verbal n-suffix *-n(e)-/*-n(e)-u-
in relation with the PIE root:
Skt. rinákti < PIE *li-né-kW-ti (<PIE *likW- < PIE *leikW-)
considering its context as: 'infixation only occurred with roots
ending in an obstruent'
It's true that even here there are discussions regarding the real
cause and the real context (and Mr. Rasmussen is one of the persons
that have constructed another model here)
But regarding O-fix model, with no clear border between the O-grade
and Zero-Grade contexts (doesn't matter their chronologies), is
really difficult to say that we have a model here.
For example for what reason we have 'usually' an o-grade in the -éye-
(causative) verbal constructions ?
Skt. ta:páyati < PIE *top-éye-ti
Only because of the 'impossible' *tp- cluster, here?
But in this case (on the other hand) we shouldn't have any o-grades
in the CVR(H) roots (like *melh, *bHer-, *bHerh1g^-) (where R can
become R.), that seems not to be the case (even I suspect so)
Thanks for any clarification here,
Marius