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

Whoops - wrong book. Sara E. Kimball wrote a book called "Hittite
Historical Phonology" that has tons of fascinating potential new PIE
roots.

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "C. Darwin Goranson"
<cdog_squirrel@...> wrote:

>
> That book (Anatolian Historical Phonology) is a treasure-trove of
> roots and derived forms lacking in the Mallory-Adams book. It's

really

> quite amazing; I'd say it might be well worth adding some of the
> suggested PIE roots that Melchert reconstructs there into a PIE

list.

> I myself started such a list, but sadly I had to return the book to
> the library. I hope to take it out again tomorrow and continue the
> job. It's quite wonderful.
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <miguelc@>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 14:12:25 -0000, Jens Elmegård Rasmussen
> > <elme@> wrote:
> >
> > >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> > ><miguelc@> wrote:
> > >
> > >> >Ringe's _From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic_ (OUP,

2006);

> > >this
> > >> >particular chapter is available online as a PDF:
> > >>
> > >> The following paragraph caught my eye:
> > >>
> > >> 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.
> > >
> > >Thanks, Miguel, for showing us this. It is of course outrageous.
> > >Hasn't anybody really understood the message of the o-infix

theory?

> >
> > Apparently not. For instance, H. Craig Melchert ("Anatolian
> > Historical Phonology") discusses "Saussure's Law" (pp.
> > 49-51) at reasonable length without mentioning the o-infix
> > hypothesis even once. Most of the discussion is about HRo-
> > > Ro-, but his two examples of -oRH- > -oR- in Hittite are
> > kalmara- "ray, beam" < *k^olh2mo-ro- and palwa:(i)- "to
> > clap", interpreted as a denominative verb from a noun
> > *pol2weh2-. At first sight, those two, being thematic
> > derivatives, seem to to conform to the restriction that "The
> > laryngeal-deleting vocalism is not *just any o*, but *only*
> > the particular kind of /o/ that emerges from an earlier
> > infixed consonant (which was still earlier a prefix) ..."
> >
> > =======================
> > Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> > miguelc@
> >
>