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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> On 2006-09-20 14:45, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > Is that harnink- "destroy" with double n-'infix' you want to use
> > as primary evidence?
>
> There is no double -n- in the singular. It's 1sg. harnikmi, etc.

3sg. har-ni-ik-zi, 3pl. har-ni-in-kán-zi, says Oettinger.
He transcribes that as harnegzi, harnenganzi, in class with
legzi, lenganzi, 'teilweise ... ausgeglichen ... zu'
lengzi, lenganzi

Interesting. n-infix only in the plural, as I said.

> I suppose the -nin- in the plural stem (harninkanzi) arose as
> a hybrid between harnik- and *har(a)nk-anzi.

Nono. This is how it works:
hargti, harngenti
(some bozo thinks -ng- is a stem extension) ->
harnegti, harngenti (cf Skt. yunákti, yunjánti) ->
harnegti, harnengenti

> >> 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-).
> >
> > That's *-nu- (<- "now, new") and *-nw-ax-, you Vandal.
>
> Well, it isn't, except perhaps as a secondary association without
> a historical basis. The great productivity of *-n(e)u- is due to
> its early appearence in factitives derived from adjectives in
> -u- (like *dHr.s-né-u-ti 'dare' from *dHr.s-ú- 'bold'; thus
> alreadu in Hittite).

'dare' = 'make bold'? Do you also have a reference to the book
of semantics you are using?

> I think Jens has explained it several times here.

A reference would be nice.

> The original value of the infixal *n seems to have
> been causative/factitive (as in Hittite), and the "just present"
> semantics is a later development.

Yes, Oettinger says so too. I'll read up in him.


Torsten