Re: [tied] Re: Lexicon of Proto-Indo-European morphological roots

From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Message: 48150
Date: 2007-04-01

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 21:02:04 +0200, Piotr Gasiorowski
<gpiotr@...> wrote:

>There's a pretty long chapter on PIE in Don
>Ringe's _From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic_ (OUP, 2006); this
>particular chapter is available online as a PDF:
>
>http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-928413-X.pdf
>
>Just a little idiosyncratic, but then what isn't. Inflectional
>morphology covered rather nicely.

Nice summary.

The following paragraph caught my eye:

Finally, it should be noted that laryngeals not adjacent to
syllabics were apparently deleted by three different rules.
A laryngeal which was separated from an o-grade vowel by a
sonorant, but was in the same syllable as the o-grade vowel,
was dropped (cf. Beekes 1969: 74-6, 238-42, 254-5). For
instance, whereas the laryngeal of *dheh1- "put" survived in
the derived noun *dhóh1mos "thing put" (cf. Gk. tho:mós
"heap" and OE do:m "judgment", both with long vowels that
reveal the prior presence of a laryngeal), that of *terh1-
"bore" was dropped in *tórmos "borehole" (cf. Gk tórmos
"socket" and OE þearm "intestine"). The most important
application of this rule was in the thematic optative, in
which the sequence */-o-yh1-/ was reduced to *-oy- in most
forms. Further, laryngeals were dropped between an
underlying nonsyllabic and */y/ (in that order) if there was
a preceding syllable in the same word (cf.Peters 1980: 81
n.38 with references); thus, though the present (i.e.
imperfective) stem of *sneh1- "twist, spin" was *snéh1ye/o-,
with the laryngeal preserved, that of *werh1- "say" was
*wérye/o- (cf. Homeric Gk /eírei/ "(s)he says"), that of
*h2erh3- "plow" was *h2érye/o- (cf. Lith. a~ria "(s)he
plows"), and so on. (A PIE present *wérh1yeti would have
given 'eréei' in Homeric Gk, while *h2érh3yeti would have
given 'ária' in Lithuanian.) Finally, it seems clear that a
laryngeal was dropped if it was the second of four
underlying nonsyllabics and was followed by a syllable
boundary (Hackstein 2002 with references); thus, for
example, the oblique stem of */dhugh2tér-/ "daughter",
underlyingly */dhugh2tr-'/, surfaced as *dhugtr.-'
with the laryngeal dropped (at a point in the derivation
before the operation of Sievers' Law, on which see the
following section).
---------------------------------------------------------

I knew about the H-deletion after /o/ (which cannot be true
as formulated here: e.g. Slavic pê"ti "sing" < poiH-taj).
Any comments on this and the other two rules?


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
miguelc@...