On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 22:45:18 +0100 (CET), Mate Kapović
<
mkapovic@...> wrote:
>On Čet, ožujak 1, 2007 11:07 pm, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal reče:
>
>> The MAS-approach also fails for verbal roots, as is clear in
>> Balto-Slavic itself: be^gnoNti is a.p. a, be^z^e^ti is a.p.
>> c. So what is the root *be^g- (*bhegW-): dominant or
>> recessive?
>
>It's recessive ((-)acute) but *-noN- "immobilizes" the (-)acute, whereas
>*-ě- does not.
Then what does that make *-noN-? It's not simply (+) or
(-). And why not an analysis making the root (+), and the
suffix -ě- "mobilizing" it? From a PIE point of view, that
seems to agree better with the facts in the Greek cognates
phébomai (with "Narten" full grade in the middle, so
"dominant" root) and phobéo: (with the "dominant"
causative-iterative suffix *-ei(h1)-e- and "recessivized"
root). The point is that an analysis in terms of just
"dominant" and "recessive" roots and suffixes is too
simplistic for PIE.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
miguelc@...