--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
<miguelc@...> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:59:37 -0000, "alexandru_mg3"
> <alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:
>
> >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"
>
> The root is *yag-. I see no reason for a laryngeal here.
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> miguelc@...
You are not in position to see 'no reason' you need to reject with
arguments the possibility that h2 existed in this root...
Why?
1. The existence of the cluster eh2, h2e in PIE that 'generates'
a/a: is well supported in PIE Model
2. the existence of a/a: in Early-PIE is not quite 'obvious'
The support for this stay only in the supposed etymology of few words
3. Whenever eh2/h2e can be reconstructed I see no no reason to
enlarge the model => Keeping the model with minimum rules is a
principle of any model
4. so before to add:
3.1 a/a: ablauts or
3.2 roots containing a in place of e
etc...
you need to find a reason to reject 'the lost of laryngeals
before mediae in Indo-Iranian'
Newton tried and found only few Principles and Eistein has tried
to unify all the forces in a single one.
I hope that I have explained clear enough the need here.
If it is better for you to have 100 rules in place of 10 ok, but
for a large majority, I think, that is not ok.
I saw only No, No, No here (from you and Piotr) but no clear
arguments to reject 'the lost of laryngeals before mediae in Indo-
Iranian'
If you have at least one argument against this rule post it here...
It will be simple: a trace of a laryngeal preserved in that position.
Marius