Re: [tied] Re: Prenasalization, not ejectives cause of Winter's law?

On 2006-09-20 01:07, tgpedersen wrote:

> The pattern in the sg., which obviously is a calque of Sanskrit,
> can't be original. It must have been *línkW-ti. It think what
> happened in Ind.-Ir. is that suffixed stems in *Cn-éC, 3sg
> CnéC-ti (you last three examples), were confused with stems in
> *CénC-, 3sg *CénC-ti, because of the common pl., 3pl CnC-énti.
> Therefore those sg. forms can't be used to prove that verbs
> like *linkW- were athematic.

The pattern is very old and certainly not copied from Indo-Iranian. Even
Hittite has clear examples of it, as in hark- 'collapse' vs. har-ni-k-zi
'destroys', and some variants even became productive in various branches
despite the generally recessive character of nasal infixation. Hence the
athematic "suffixes" *-neu-, *-nah2-, extracted from old infixed
presents with final *w, *h2, like *tl.nah2- (cf. Lat. tollo:, from
infixed *telh2-).

Piotr