Re: [tied] Alternating foot

On 2006-10-07 17:26, tgpedersen wrote:

> A-hem. Root vowels don't go away ever, except in special cases.

They don't go away when an acrostatic noun is normally declined. They
may go away in an evironment notorious for making segments go away. In
compunds, laryngeals fail to vocalise or disappear altogether, consonant
clusters get simplified, and even an underlyingly long vowel may be
reduced to zero.

> Shouldn't this rather lead us to construe those cases of acrostatic
> root nouns where we'd expect zero grade, but find something else, as
> reconstructed?

I'm not sure I see what you mean. There's some pretty good evidence for
the e-grade in the weak cases of acrostatic nouns, and no evidence for
the zero grade there. In what sense is the latter "expected"?

> BTW, am I right in assuming that in nominal O-V constructions of
> the type X-i-Y (dragon-slayer) that the root vowel is in zero or
> o-grade?

There are three types of compounds with a verbal noun in the second
position and a governed first member. The vocalism of the second member
depends on the type:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/44428

Piotr