On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 01:35:20 +0200, Piotr Gasiorowski
<
gpiotr@...> wrote:
>The *wérh1-je/o- --> *wérje/o- rule is Pinault's Law
The problem is: was the laryngeal dropped, or did it fail to
vocalize? Greek can show failure to vocalize, but
Balto-Slavic often shows whether it was dropped or not.
If what I said in Copenhagen last summer is correct, what
we're dealing here is failure to vocalize:
<begin quote>
An interesting case are tudáti and jé-verbs ending in a
syllabic resonant. In theory we would expect the following
distribution:
tudáti jé
R. -i.Ró: -iR.jó:
R.H -iR.Hó: -iRH.jó:
leading to:
tudáti jé
R. -iRó: (b) -iR~jo: > (c)
R.H -iR~Ho: > i``Ro: (c) -iRHjó: > -iRjó: (b)
That is to say, tudáti-verbs become a.p. c when they have a
set.-root, and remain a.p. b otherwise, while jé-verbs
remain a.p. b when set., but become mobile when anit.. This
implies that at the time of the mêNso-law, laryngeals were
still phonological in Proto-Slavic.
In practice, we find:
anit.
a.p. b (tudáti) a.p. c (jé)
jImóN, jeNtí (*h1em-) mI``rjoN, mertí (*mer-)
c^InóN, c^eNtí (*ken-) stI``rjoN, stertí (*ster-) [1]
z^ImóN, z^eNtí (*gem-)
set.
a.p. b (jé) a.p. c (tudáti)
dUm(j)óN, doN"ti (*dhmeH-) [2] z^i``roN, z^ertí (*gWerh3-)
z^InjóN, z^eN"ti (*gwih3-) nI``roN nertí (*nerH-)
z^IrjóN, z^Ir"ti (*gWerH-) pI``roN pertí (*spherH-)
tIrjóN, tIr"ti (*terh1-) klI``noN kleNtí (*klenH-)
pI``noN peNtí (*(s)penh1-)
tI``noN teNtí (*temh1-)
[1] LIV (sub *sterh3-): "Möglicherweise wird von dem slav.
Verbum auch *ster- 'niederstrecken' fortgesetzt"
[2] cf. Lith. dumiù.
An apparent exception is mInóN, meNtí (Lith. minù), probably
originally an athematic verb (thus LIV).
<end quote>
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
miguelc@...