Re: The meaning of life: PIE. *gWiH3w-

----- Original Message -----
From: "etherman23" <etherman23@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 6:23 PM
Subject: Re:Re: Re: Re: [tied] Re: The meaning of life: PIE. *gWiH3w-


--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:
>
> That is a good question, Ron:

Actually the name is Ray.

***

Sorry, Ray,

***


> I think we can identify all (or at least the great overwhelming
majority of)
> *CV roots in PIE: *me, *no, *g(^)he, etc.

Let's not forget the interrogative root *kWi.

***

You surely know that the root in Pokorny is listed under *kWo-, *kWe-. That
certainly looks like *A(blautvokal) to me.

Especially so since suffixes of the major variations are known from
elsewhere: nominal genitive -*y(a); feminine -*Ha (not *kWia: but) *kWa:; a
nominal topical in -*w(a); in *kWu: (cf. *te, 'you', *tu, 'you' (topical).

***


> If we see -*i/*u or -*y/*w appended to one of these, then it is sure to
> be -*y/-*w because PIE has no derivative suffixes in *V;

What about the i-, u-, and o-stem suffixes of nouns?

***

The -*i and *u stems derive from -*y and -*w; the -*o stems are from an
earlier shift in the stress-accent to indicate imperfectivity in the nominal
idea.

***

The are also
numerous suffixes in *Ci and *Cu which make more sense as CV suffixes
than CC suffixes.

***

Yes? What are a few in your opininion?

***

Also reduplicated forms having a *i vowel make more
sense than reduplicated forms with a *y consonant.

***

Not sure I know exactly what you are saying here.

***

> though, of course,
> there are some *CV's like -*Ha(:).

And even some in VC like the feminine *eH2 and *iH2.

***

Those are incorrect reconstructions of thos affixes, IMHO: -*Ha:
and -*y(e)Ha:


> Thus *méi-, 'my', is properly *méy-.

Or better yet *mi > *mai > *mei under stress. Also *mi > *me before
resonants.

***

No, I do not think so: *mi under stress -> *mí; I do not believe a position
before resonants changed any *mi to *me.

***


> If the bare root consists with *CV: (either 'underlying' or caused by
> laryngal), *CV:(H), in the case of *CV:i/y-, -*y should be
reconstructed
> because PIE has no derivative suffixes in *V;

Except *i, *u, and *e/o.

***

Already answered above.

***
> the same is true of *CV(:)H-
> except that when the consonantal nature of *H was still present, the
> formative -yV was probably vocalized as -*i.

Or rather the formative *-i > *-yV when another vowel was suffixed.

***

Nothing prevents that from subsequently happening.

***
> Any root that has the form *Céi/uC- must first be analyzed as having
the
> root *Cey-/*Cew- to which the root extension -*C has been added.

Or first analyzed as *Ci or *Cu which became diphthongized under
stress. Some roots of this form may go back to *Ceu or *Cei as well.

***

An oft repeated argument that makes no sense:

1) in word positions where we expect stress-accent, we find *CéiC-; in
position where the stress-accent has shifted: *Ci-; nothing you have said
warrants a belief that in an earlier time, the syllable, which was
presumably stressed for your idea to work (*Cí), was expanded to *Céi _under
the same stress conditions - unless you want to argue for a pos-strses
syndrome.

***

> The short answer: *i and *u are never anything but avocalic reflexes
of *y
> and *w.

I'd say it's actually the reverse of that.

***

Sayin' it iz eezy, stinkin' proovin' it iz xard.


Patrick