Re: [tied] Re: Pretonic laryngeals in roots

--- Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

> On 2007-03-16 13:31, Sean Whalen wrote:
>
> > These are not from PIE but the result of similar
> > changes in a few branches. Even Iranian and Indic
> > aren't exactly the same. H3 (xW) can cause this,
> too
> > (* pYròxW >> prathamá-).
>
> Iranian (MPer.) also occasionally shows forms with
> -tH- in words related
> to <pratHamá->. I don't think this aspiration can be
> blamed on *h3, as
> the word can be derived with far less trouble from
> *pro- (cf. comp.
> pra-tara-, Av. Gk. pró-teros). It may be due to
> sporadic contamination
> (e.g. of *pratama- with pratHa- 'spreading out').

Wouldn't *o > o: > a:? Greek has analogy with *
pYròxW > pró (I'd say many branches had final a(:)x >
a(:) and o(:)xW > o(:)).

> > In some languages both the x() before and C
> > following are important:
> >
> > Latin t>tH / xY(+syl) _ r
> >
> > * t.èr.-xY-tró+ > terebra
> >
> > * kYrìxYtró+ > cri:brum
>
> The *h1 is not syllabic in the latter,

xY+syl = xY,
xY(+syl)= xY, or xY

<and <terebra>

> is a secondary,
> analogical form, considering its gender (an original
> neuter collective).
> The older forms must have been *tér&1-trom (> Gk.
> téretron) and
> *tr.h1-tHráh2, hence the levelled-out *ter&1-tHrah2
> > terebra. There is
> no aspiration e.g. in *hár&3-trom > ara:trum (with
> secondary /a:/, cf
> Gk. árotron), where the laryngeal was syllabic.

That's from xW, not xY.

> > However, -idus is not from *-e-h1- + -to-.
> There's
> > no reason for the h1 to disappear
>
> Why not?

Well, it didn't in your other examples. If you're
bringing analogy into play I can't make a certain case
against it based only on that.

> It coalesces with the *t into an aspirate.

The x() disappears as it aspirates in some
environments, but it seems to be based on the
surroundings not analogy (to me).

> This does not happen
> when *h1 is part of the root (perhaps because of
> analogical
> restoration), but in a string of suffixes there's
> nothing to protect it
> from full coalescence.
>
> > and there are
> > cognates in other languages (where there's no
> tH>d).
>
> vi:vidus : ji:vatHa-

I've seen no evidence that *exYt > etH > atH in
Sanskrit. They are based on the same root, but based
on other changes in Indic I'd say it's from
* gWixWwa+xto+ 'given / possessed of (long) life' so
the *axt > atH is regular.

I'm not sure what you would predict for denta:tus,
cornu:tus (that is, you didn't give any examples of
xtV) so I'll wait before saying more.

I'd say stative verbs in *-èxY+ had adj. in
*-(e)xYdó+ meaning 'being'. So *xYruudhexYó+ >
*xYruudheyó+ 'red', *xYruudh(e)xYdó+ 'being red,
blushing' >
rubeus, OCS ryz^dI; and Early Irish ruidiud 'blush'

Latin retained the adj. meaning but Slavic turned
most into abstract nouns: OCS pravIda '*being straight

> right'; Sb-Cr govedo '*cattle adj. > head of cattle'

(or in line with your theory 'being alive > living
being').

> > I even say that tH > T > f > v > b between e and
> o.
> > The descriptions of the restrictions on dH > b are
> > based on a faulty understanding of the data ...
>
> Well, this is a rather bold statement.

That's why I said I'd say more later. For now,
consider the possibility that dh-w and dh-y failed to
change > b() but dh > b between V's.

*urdhwos > arduus

*medhyos > medius

*xaidhya:x > aede:s

with dissimilation i-y > i-0; y detectable by ya:>ye:
/ _#.





____________________________________________________________________________________
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news