From: stlatos
Message: 49062
Date: 2007-06-19
> That would mean there is noBut you said:
> independent support for
> such a change. Other sonorant clusters may develop
> into geminates but
> don't cause vowel lengthening.
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> In our earlier discussion I
> suspected a Proto-Germanic vr.ddhi formation, which is a possibility,
> but perhaps the simplest solution is the best: the expected feminine
> derivative of *kán-o:n would have been *kan-n-ih2. If at the time in
> question the ancestor of Germanic did not tolerate geminated nasals,
> degemination with compensatory lengthening would have produced
*ka~ni: >
> *ka:ni:, further transformations withing Germanic yielding secondarily
> extended stems like *xo:n-jo:n- (ON hna) etc.
I believe it was *kan-n.i:x > *xo:ni: with the second N (actually n.)
disappearing and causing gemination for stops but V-lengthening for a
sonorant. This can be seen in *melY-x-n.o+ > *me:la+
'black/dark/dirty > stain/mark'.
> On 2007-06-18 22:32, stlatos wrote:
> > Why would root nouns be used for tools?
> Becuse instrumental nouns are semantically akin to
> agent nouns (cf.
> Eng. cutter, which may mean 'someone who cuts' or
> 'something that cuts').
But what other examples are there for IE, or Germanic specifically?
> > Why does it only happen with roots ending in -r?
>
> I didn't say it did. You gave two examples with
> final *r, but there are
> similar formations from other roots, e.g *se:to:
> 'ambush, place for
> sitting' (OE sæ:t, ON sát, etc.).
Of course there are words with long vowels; I mean a tool-word,
preferably with cognates in other languages in which long V can be
seen so a Germanic explanation involving lengthening wouldn't work.
> > Why aren't there any words that show another
> outcome of *rtl in
> > Germanic?
>
> See below.
>
> > There are already at least 10 different outcomes
> of *-tlo- in
> > Germanic (more if you believe in a
> tro/tlo-identity). Among all the
> > IE languages, there are dozens more. If there
> were an example of
> > -rþl- that proved a more regular outcome of -rtl-
> I wouldn't have
> > made this claim.
>
> Since I accept the hypothesis that a liquid in the
> root made the suffix
> surface as *-tro-, I'd expect only *...r-tro-,
> yielding *-rþra-, as in
> ON arðr.
I've already given a few examples that show this is not a complete
explanation (at least). In fact the cognates I gave show rtl almost
directly as ferculum, or kartari:- with a change sim. to Greek
*karttlos > kártallos.
If arðr corresponds to ara:trum why not bæ:r with ferculum? There
is no contradictory evidence. There are just too many coincidences
for me to accept that these words just happen to be from otherwise
unseen PIE *bhe:r, etc., instead of *bho:r.