Re: *a/*a: ablaut

On 2008-02-13 00:42, alexandru_mg3 wrote:

> I thought that we have agreed in the past at least on this:
>
> Lubotsky:
> "
> Recently, it was demonstrated by Beekes (forthcom.) that in the word-
> initial sequence RHC- not the resonant but the laryngeal was vocalized,
> yielding -a- in Italo-Celtic and Germanic and e/a/o (depending on the
> kind of laryngeal) in Greek. This means that the above-mentioned roots
> had an internal H2, which was vocalized in the zero grade.
> "

The 'nose' word is not *RHC- (it's *HRHC if you assume an internal
laryngeal) and *nVs- is found where it shouldn't occur according to the
above formulation (Slavic and Sanskrit are not Italo-Celtic, Germanic or
Greek). Also the *j of <hágios> and <yájati> was probably non-initial.

> Could you try finally to derive hagi'os based on *hjag^-?
>
> 1. Why we should have a full grade here?

Why not? Something like *(h)jág^i-o- > hágios (sic! Lubotsky got the
accent wrong) is pretty straightforward. The full vowel doesn't worry
me, since that's why I'd expect in an *a word. Also Gk. ázomai <
*(h)jág^-je/o- and Gk. hagnós, Skt. yajn~á- < *(h)jag^-nó- are OK. I'm
more worried about the RV perf. i:jé and the p.p. is.t.a- and their nil
grade. The only explanation I can think of is that they are analogical
(yaj- --> ij- in new formations, e.g. productive ij- + -tá- = is.t.á
replacing non-productive yaj- + -ná- = yajn~á- as the deverbal adjective).

> 2. What is the suffix inside?

I've no idea what you mean by a "suffix inside". It's an oxymoron.

> 3. Where the accent position is/should be in relation with the
> full/nil-grade of the root and the identified suffix?

In such roots the vowel generally remains full and attracts the accent
unless some other process intervenes (such as the contrastive value of
suffixal accent)