--- Piotr Gasiorowski <
gpiotr@...> wrote:
> On 2007-05-18 05:38, Sean Whalen wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>
> With what? The existence of the distinction?
I don't believe the -wos/ous distinction came from a
dif. in light vs. heavy in PIE. The form of the gen.
was unpredictable from looking at the stem; it came
from older nom. in either -us or -eus ( > -us).
medhu+s . medhu+'s . sunYeu+s . sunYeu+'s
medhu+s . medhu+'s . sunYeu+s . sunYéu+s
medhu+s . medhu+ós . sunYeu+s . sunYóu+s
medhu+s . medhw+ós . sunYeu+s . sunYóu+s
medhu+s . medhw+ós . sunYu+s .. sunYóu+s
If there had been a PIE rule as such than there
would be no change in 'river' or 'lynx' as:
daxnus . daxnwos . luugYsnus . luugYsnwos
daxnus . daxwwos . luugYsnus . luugYswwos
daxnus . daxuwos . luugYsnus . luugYsuwos
so the forms with and without n wouldn't exist (as
I've written about before).
Also, what timing for the rules would you prefer?
What would *pl,txus give: *pl,txous or *pl,tx,wos?
> > 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.
>
> I much prefer the old comparison of <keraunós> with
> Skt. s'áru- 'arrow',
> Gmc. *xeru- 'sword' < *k^érh2-u-, from *k^erh2-
> 'smash, hurt' and a
> derivation via the heteroclitic verbal abstract
> *k^érh2wr./n- .
Why would *w be in an r/n-stem when the root you
suggest is *kYerx+? Shouldn't that be *kYerxr, and so
be unable to >> keraunós even if it existed?
____________________________________________________________________________________Give spam the boot. Take control with tough spam protection in the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_html.html