--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <miguelc@...>
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:14:32 -0000, "alexandru_mg3"
> <alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> sva:dús "sweet" < *sweh2dús, etc.
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> miguelc@...
>
Miguel, with the above example...I hope that you not try to treat
Lubotsky as a pure idiot.
I will quote for you what the rule is and the additional explanations:
Lubotsky:
"
The roots of all above-mentioned words contain a final unaspirated
voiced stop, preceded by a laryngeal, and, äs I have shown elsewhere
(Lubotsky 1981)
laryngeals were lost in Sanskrit before mediae, WHEN THE WHOLE CLUSTER
WAS FOLLOWED BY A CONSONANT.
In the same article I considered the exceptions
to this ruie. Here I only mention, that the presents svadati, bhajati
and radati were originally athematic, äs is evident from, e.g., the
Vedic forms bhaksi and ratsi.
"
"
(2)
Of the two middles of the root *sueh2d-, sva:date was
doubtless the original one, while sva'date was formed after
the active sva'dati.
Since thematic middles often contrast in
the RV. with athematic actives (cf. RENOU 1952: 249), it is
likely, that sva'dat-i was originally athematic.
(4) sva':dman- and sva':dman- have the quantity of the vowel of
the adjective, as often by the derivatives in -man- (WACKERNAGEL-
DEBRUNNER 1954: 754).
"
Marius