--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "P&G" <G.and.P@...> wrote:
>
> >So, now that I have convinced myself that PIE *dheh1- and *doh3-
> >are really the same verb
>
> There is a consequence to what you're saying:
> Since Latin Greek and Sanskrit consistently distinguish these roots,
> I suppose you are arguing:
> (a) The root split into two roots at some stage.
> (b) This must be before the split-up of
> Latin-Greek-Armenian-Sanskrit (unless each of these families
> independently split the root, which seems less likely).
> (c) Germanic kept the original situation of a single root (well,
> that is what you're arguing, isn't it?)
> (d) Therefore Germanic split off before
> Latin-Greek-Armenian-Sanskrit separated.
>
> Isn't it rather simpler, and better, to acknowlege that Latin,
> Greek, Armenian and Sanskrit just happen to be the languages (other
> than Germanic) that clearly distinguish PIE *dh and PIE *d ?
I acknowledge that, but I don't think it has any bearing on what I am
proposing, which is:
In the general case, that the ablauting root vowel in eg. verbs would
affect the anlauting consonants of the root so that they alternated in
the paradigm too; this was in the most cases restored by analogy;
actually I see in the particular case of velar anlaut an alternation
where *k^ (etc) was *k/*c^, *k was *k/*k and *kW was *kW/*k, which, by
generalization of either alternative resulted in centum and satem
languages, respectively. But I am digressing.
In the particular case, there was a verb "give, put" which alternated
like I sketched in
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/46861
and which became at some time (to quote);
1sg *dóm
2sg *dhé:i
3sg *dhé:i
1pl *dómV
2pl *dhéghtV
3pl *dontV
from which two verbs could be extracted by generalization one way
or another, or not, all according to the astuteness of local language
theory-makers.
Within that theory the split-up could have been done at any time,
einzelsprachlich.
Concerning your claim that the languages that distinguished *dh from
*d kept the roots *dhe:- and *do:- separate, let me quote
Ernout/Meillet's Dictionnaire in the article of Latin do on the
subject of that verb with preverbs:
"
Composés verbaux en -do. Étant donné que pour les Latins, il n'y avait
qu'une seule sorte de composés en -do, il a semblé conforme au
sentiment qu'ils avaient de leur langue de donner ces composés dans
l'ordre alphabétique, en indiquant pour chacun d'eux à quelle racine,
celle de dare ou la racine indo-européenne dhe:-, il est vraisemblable
qu'ils se rattachent:
"
[and then the examples].
In other words, the two supposed roots are assigned Latin preverbed
composites of do: by the authors solely on the basis of the semantics
of same two supposed roots. They can not be distinguished formally in
those composites.
It is true that Latin has two roots d- and fac- with senses
corresponding to what we find in Greek and Sanskrit. But if we assume
a single origin for the two roots, it is difficult to claim that the
Latin split took place at the same time as the Greek and Armenian ones
since the Latin stems are so different from the Greek/Sanskrit ones.
Torsten