--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> Now "everybody knows" that
> Grimm's Law came first and Verner's Law came after it (I mean the
actual
> sound changes, not their linguistic formulations) -- which is, at best,
> only partially correct. The subtle but crucial (I'd say
> incontrovertible) evidence for their true relative chronology comes
from
> Kluge's Law, which is rarely if ever mentioned in handbooks.
By searching I found your previous examples:
BTW, OE e:anian- < *auno:jan- 'bear young (of sheep and goats)',
implying PGmc. *auna-, is often quoted (also by Pokorny) to justify the
reconstruction of *gWH rather than *gW (the latter clearly supported by
Greek). My private theory, however, is that *-kWn-, *-gWn- and *-gWHn-
would have produced the same Germanic outcome, first merging as *-gWn-
during the initial stage of Kluge's Law, then losing the velar closure
and becoming *-wn- before the operation of nasal assimilation, thus
escaping the further development to *-ggW- and (finally) *-kkW-. Cf.
Goth. siuns 'sight' *seuni- < *sekW-n-i- (but not via _Vernerian_
*segWni-: Kluge's Law bleeds VL of its input!).
Gmc. *xabe:- can be derived without any problems from *kap-éh1- (present
stem *kap-h1-jé-) with the stative suffix *-eh1- modifying the meaning
of the verb, from 'take, grasp' to 'have, keep'. Germanic *xapp- may
derive from *kap-n-' through Kluge's Law (see *xafn- < *káp-no- with
root stress). *kó:p-o- and *kó:p-a-h2 (as in Gk. ko:pe: '[oar-]handle')
These are from different times so I'm not sure about your current
conception. Whatever it may be it seems wrong. You don't mention
* (xukWnós > uxWnaz > auhns, oven, etc) as Gk ipnós. The only way
that works (considering you have no evidence for the accent in some
of the forms you use except for its outcome under the rules you
accept) is (with dental as shorthand for all stops):
dH-n > d-n
dH-t > d-t
d-t > t-t
t-n > d-n / V with accent! _
gW-n > w-n
d-n > n-n / *V V _ V
t > tH
tH > dH / V-accent _ *n () V
d > t
tH > þ / *fricative _
tH > t
dH > d
etc.
The crucial point is that Verner's Law can't apply to VtnV, etc.
(and that an opposite accent rule had already applied specifically
to VtnV).
xukWnós kapnós sékWnis xágWnos dóik^nos lig^hná:x
ukWnós kapnós sékWnis ágWnos dóiknos ligná:
ukWnós kapnós ségWnis ágWnos dóignos ligná:
ukWnós kapnós séwnis áwnos dóignos ligná:
ukWnós kapnós séwnis áwnos dóignos liggá:
ukWHnós kHapHnós séunis áunos dóignos liggá:
ukWHnós kHapHnós séunis áunos tóiknos likká:
uxWnós xafnós séunis áunos tóiknos likká:
uxWnaz hafnaz siuniz aunaz taiknaz likko: