Re: *a/*a: ablaut

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

>
> On 2008-02-12 21:11, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> >
> > 1. Do you accept 'the loss of laryngeals before mediae in Indo-
> > Iranian"?
> >
> > like in:
> > Skt. vájra-
> > Skt. pajrá
> > etc..
>
> No, it's Lubotsky's private theory, not accepted by the majority of
> IEists. In roots like *bHag- even LIV has *a. The reconstruction
> *bHah2g- only creates problems instead of solving them. Lubotsky
> performs some acrobatic tricks to explain away the short /a/ of
> <bHájati>, while the simplest solution (*bHeg-/*bHog-/*bHg- with

the

> e-grade coloured to *a by the following *g) explains all the

attested

> forms without invoking analogy or any other "special effect". Forms

like

> <bHa:jáyati> and <babHá:ja> have /a:/ from the expected o-grade via
> Brugmann's Law (*bHog-éje/o-, *bHe-bHóg-e). Just forget the

laryngeal

> and let regular sound changes do their job.
>
> Incidentally, this verb has *e as its fundamental vocalism; it

isn't one

> of the *a:/a roots. Mixing it up with *wa(:)g^- etc. is wrong.
>
> Piotr
>

You have taken an ad-hoc example above.
I only talk about laryngeal before mediae in Indo-Iranian.

If the laryngeal wasn't lost before mediae in Indo-Iranian what are
your derivations for:

Skt. is.-t.i 'sacrifice' < PIE *ih2g^-ti (Grk. agnos)

and

Skt. yáj-yu 'pious' < PIE *ieh2g^-iu- (Skt. yájati `honour with
offers and prayer')

As Beekes said the :
"The connection [with Grk (h)agios 'holy' and the PIE *ieh2g^-] is
semantically unobjectionable"

Marius