----- Original Message -----From: alexandru_mg3Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:32 PMSubject: Re: [tied] The idea of the root *h1eg^ ("I", "to speak")--- In cybalist@... s.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@ ...>
wrote:
> Perhaps the nonconnectibility of *tu- with any root
suggesting 'hear' (which we might reasonably expect in the second
person as a counterpart to 'speak(er)' in the first person) suggests
an alternative explanation.
>
>
> Patrick
Or maybe not Patrick, If we will consider PIE *tuH as an Old loan
from another Language where the meaning was really 'to hear':
Look at http://starling. rinet.ru/ cgi-bin/response .cgi?
root=config& morpho=0& basename= \data\bush\ xamet&first= 361:
where you will find the Root *tu- as 'to hear'
"
Proto-!Wi : *t́u
Stems : *tu-i
Meaning : to hear
***
Marius, that is very interesting.
A loan from this group of languages is highly unlikely, however, because they do not seem to have been in close proximity anywhere or anytime that we know.
Secondly, I would question your reconstruction of *tuH.
It seems to me that the earliest PIE for 'you (sing.)' should be *té, which form (*te) we see in the accusative.
Why? Because *té cannot derive from *tu/u: by any normally recognized process. But *tu/u: (and more transparently, genitive *t(e)we) _can_ be derived from *té if we assume a *-w case-marker.
The long vowel in *tu: can be more easily explained as compensatory lengthening (from *teú).
But I cannot be less than candid. I do believe the pre-PIE form was probably *tu.
Patrick
***