Re: [tied] Daimo:n 'Divider' <-> Bog 'Divider' too?

Isn't Greek <phagein> "to eat" also supposed to be derived from this root? The semantic progression is perhaps "divide">"share">"partake">"eat". If so, where does Greek <a> come from? Is it a case of the velar colouring *e to *a? Or was there an *h2 before the *e? And how regular is this velar colouring of *e to *a? Why, for example, do we not see it in *legh- "lie" (Slavic *lez^-)? Or *sek- "cut" (Slavic *sekyra or similar "scythe"or similar)?

Andrew

Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

On 2007-01-17 13:22, alexandru_mg3 wrote:

> If *bHag- 'to divide' is with a- and we don't have any ablaut forms
> or a trace of a laryngeal, it cannot be considered a PIE word, but a
> later loan...
>
> On the other hand, without the a-issue, the root fits perfectly the
> PIE pattern "CVC" and in addition the Sanskrit derived words and even
> the Slavic ones (derivation in -to for 'rich'), considered later
> loans, could be completly reconstructed based on the PIE suffixes.
>
> In addition the semantic derivation "God" <- "Divider" <- "To
> Divide" present in Greek /daimo:n/ too, show us a common (PIE?)
> semantic evolution.
>
> Viewing all these, could I ask you : finally "where we are" in this
> case with this root? Is from PIE, or not?

<bHa:gá-> can be regarded as an o-grade with Brugmannian lengthening (<
*bHogó-). We may be dealing with one of the IE verb roots in which the
velar colours the e-grade vowel to *a (my other putative examples
include *kan- 'sing', *kap- 'grasp' and *tag- 'touch'). If so, the
phonetic realisation of the ablaut variants is simply *bHag-/*bHog- .

Piotr