Re: [tied] n-infix (was: Prenasalization, not ejectives cause of Wi

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

> By the way, I wonder if anybody has described the laryngeal-

deleting

> effect of the nasal infix -- I'm not aware of any studies of it. It
> affects stem-internal laryngeals only (which would have become
> interconsonantal after the insertion of *-n(e)-) and is

reminiscent of

> Saussure's effect in O-infixations. Thus, the verb derived from

*tn.h2ú-

> 'thin, stretched' is not *tn.h2néu- but *tn.néu- (Skt. tanóti, mid.
> tanuté, Hom.Gk. tánutai, from PIE *tn.néu-ti, *tn.nu-tór), and from
> *wn.h1-ú- 'zealous' (Skt. vanú-) we get *wn.néu- (Skt. vanóti,

vanuté).

>
> See also another intriguing connection:
>
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/39236
>
> It should be emphasised that the addition of a suffix to a *CRH-

root in

> the zero grade causes no laryngeal deletion, so the above

consitutes

> support for the infix analysis.

I have addressed the issue in: Zur Abbauhierarchie des Nasalpräsens.
In: H.Eichner & H..Rix (eds.), Sprachwissenschaft und Philologie.
Jacob Wackernagel und die Indogermanistik heute. Wiesbaden 1990:
Reichert, 188-201, esp. 195-97 on tanóti, sanóti, vanóti. For Vedic
sanóti I depart from *senH2-n-w-, which apparently lost either the
laryngeal or the second n, yielding either *senhw- or *sennw-,
whence, with anaptyxis and accentuation of the new vowel and zero-
grading of unaccented vowels, either *sn.H2éw- or *sn.néw-. If
Eichner is right in identifying Hitt. sanhuzzi 'roasts' (as *'makes
ready, prepares') with Ved. sanóti 'reaches, wins', the PIE form was
*sn.H2éw-. I admit it's speculative, but how else can one account
for what we find?

Jens