Re: Brugmann's Law

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

> ... and looks quite attractive at first blush, given that the most
> puzzling exceptions all seem to be words with voiceless obstruents.
>
> > Now, I cannot think of an example with unvoiced consonant and

Brugmann's

> > Law? Any examples? I haven't really looked seriously for examples, one
> > obvious candidate is nápa:t which indeed has -a:- as from Brugmann

in all

> > the right places (nápa:tam etc.) but according to Macdonell there

is no

> > *napat- attested in Vedic so one cannot see the oposition short-long.
>
> Possible counterexamples are perfects of CVC roots such as 3sg. tatá:pa
> vs. 1sg. tatá:pa (< *tetópe, *tetoph2a). Admittedly, these may be
> analogical <cakára/caká:ra> etc., but the <napa:t-> case is harder to
> explain, and for me, personally, the crucial piece of evidence is the
> 'water' root *h2ap- (nom.sg. *h2o:ps, acc. *h2opm., gen. *h2ap(V)s,
> inst. *h2apeh1, nom.pl. *h2opes, loc. *h2apsu, etc.). There is no
> quantitative levelling in this word in IIr., so we can trust the
> lengthening in the nom.pl. á:pas (vs. its absence in the gen. apás,

ins.

> apá:) as evidence of Brugmann's Law.

This paradigm is wrong. The word had a strong stem with *xaxpY+ and
weak *xx,pY+.

The Sanskrit x, became a in the same syl. as another velar. In
Latin gen. pl. *xx,pYo:m > *x,pYo:m > *po:m > *pu:m in:

*PotenY xx,pYo:m
*Nepot+ xx,pYo:m

>

*Nepo:s / Nept+ pu:m
*Nepo:s / Nept+ u:m

>

*Neptu:mos
*Neptu:nos


Analogy changes the former phrase into a noun (in masculine -os).
The second p dissimilates from the first. Only in a monosyllable
would o:>u:.

Between vowels m>n after n just like between vowels n>m after m in
*mYoryixYn.os > maritimus. Also, after surviving K (see my earlier
descriptions) m>m.>n.>n unless followed directly by n. (so not *-mYn.,

> -men).