Re: [tied] Comments on Beekes' pre-Greek

I think there are two affixes :

1. #d- prefix :

this prefix is often a useless pleonastic addition to roots that already have medio-passive meaning

akru dakru : "shed tears"

yew dyew :"be day light"

rew srew drew : "flow (as of water)"

2. -t- infix

this infix appear about only in Greek

Semantics is thus unclear when you remain inside Indo-European framework.

We are not supposed to make macro-comparative talk on this site

but you have to know that these two affixes have obvious counterparts in Afro-Asiatic languages.

----- Original Message -----

From: etherman23

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 6:59 AM

Subject: [Courrier indésirable] Re: [tied] Comments on Beekes' pre-Greek

--- In cybalist@... s.com, "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@ ...>
wrote:
>
> Why not dare posit an -t- infix in Indo-European ?
>
> this explains :
>
> kwel "inhabit" => polis + ptolis
> => polemos + ptolemos
>
> bhegh "to beg" => English beg Grec ptokh-
> (Both words are supposed to be isolated)
>
> Most words in Greek with starting with pt and kt are infixed with -t-.

I've always wondered about a *d prefix. In those words beginning with
*p the *d prefix assimilates in voicing to *t then undergoes
metathesis. We also have the *ak'ru~*dak' ru pair. This would also
explain those instances in Greek that have initial z where other
languages point to initial y (generally the multiple reflexes of PIE
#*y are explained by assuming a laryngeal).

Possibly the prefix was *dH. The *dH could still assimilate to *t
whereas *dHak'ru > *dak'ru because of the root constraints on voiced
aspirates and plain voiceless not co-occurring in roots. I'm not sure
what PIE *dHy is reflected as in Greek. The only thing I could find at
the Tower of Babel site was a single root where *dHy > Greek s. The
*dH prefix would also explain the *ag'H~*dHag' H variant.

But whether it's a prefix or infix, what are the semantics?