Re: [tied] *pYerkW+

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

> On 2007-05-17 21:21, stlatos wrote:
>
> > PIE had different u- and eu-stems depending on
> the original ending.
> > Most branches have analogy obscuring this but
> this change is early
> > enough to avoid that.
>
> Depending on the structure of the root we have gen.
> sg. *-w-ós (after
> light stems such as *medHu-) or *-éu-s (after heavy
> stems such as
> *pértu-, see Szemerényi). Lat. quercus represents
> the latter type.

I don't agree.

> > Definitely not. Some languages have kW>0
> between r_u and
> > *pYerkWuunos > *kWerkWuunos > *kWeraunos brd>
> Greek keraunos. In
> > whatever language Greek borrowed it from the order
> of rules shows no
> > kWu>ku.
>
> I don't happen to believe in such a change,
> _especially_ in Greek, where
> the delabialisation of labiovelars before in the
> vicinity of /u, w/ is
> well evidenced.

What does Greek delabialization have to do with it?
That happens after relatively late after o>u and
affects KW before and after u (kuklos).

I have no idea if that kW>0 occurs in Greek; there's
no evidence. If so it would be well before KW>K by u.

> And why is there no *teraunos with
> *te- < *kWe-?

I said it was borrowed. Though I can't know exactly
when it took place or from what language it came there
was probably kW>k etc. before the borrowing.

> > But *pYerkWn.os > quernus has neither u nor eu
> after kW;
>
> So what?

From what you had written before I wasn't sure if
you believed u was an inherent part of the root. If
so I wanted to argue against that.

Also to show that if kWu>ku was actually a PIE
change then analogy needn't have come from a supposed
*perkWeu+ but could instead be from other words with
the same root. I don't believe that, I'm attempting
to argue within your frame of reference.

> > there's no
> > evidence that the exact stem from the root
> *pYerkW+ that Querquetani
> > comes from had eu/u so it doesn't prove analogy of
> ku / kWeu > kWu /
> > kWeu or something similar.
>
> It may have been *perkW-eto- or *perk[W]w-eto. In
> either case the
> Italo-Celtic assimilation of the initial *p is
> expected.

I agree. I thought you might be using that as
evidence that there was *pYerkWeu+ at some point in
the derivation.




____________________________________________________________________________________
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265