On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:19:49 -0600, "Patrick Ryan"
<
proto-language@...> wrote:
>Thanks, Piotr.
>
>Locative looks like a real possibility to me.
>
>Perhaps you can answer something.
>
>Would IE *bh&i- result in Lithuanian <bai->?
Some would say yes (*h2 > *&(2) > *a), but personally I
don't believe that "schwa indogermanicum" gives /a/ in
Balto-Slavic (it disappears).
The root which Pokorny gives as *bho:i- ~ *bh&i- ~ *bhi:-
"sich fürchten", corresponds to LIV (p. 72) *bheih2- (*h2
because of CLuw. pi:ha-, Lyc. piXe- "fear" < *bhéih2-os).
I'm not sure what Pokorny means by *bho:i-, maybe it's just
his way of notating *bhoih2- (with an acute diphthong in
Balto-Slavic terms). However, given the Sanskrit words
bhá:ma- "anger" and bha:mitás "angry", if from an original
C-stem *bhéh2-m, there may be grounds for positing an
original root *bhVh2i- ~ *bhVih2- ~ *bhVh2- with "Rasmussen"
laryngeal metathesis (*bhVh2i- before V, *bhVih2- before CV,
*bhVh2- before CC or C#). Most of the forms attested outside
of Indo-Iranian reflect the perfect (with present meaning)
with o-grade *bhóih2- ~ *bhóh2i- and zero-grade *bhh2i- or
*bhih2- (as assuredly in Latv. bîstuos < *bhi:-sk^é-).
In Baltic we have Lith. baidýti vs. Latv. bai~dy^t, of which
the first appears to reflect *bai~d- with circumflex
diphthong (perhaps from original *bhoh2i-dh(h1)- > *bo:id- >
bai~d-), and the second *baíd- (< *bhoih2-dh(h1)-) with
acute diphthong (if Pokorny's Latvian data is correct).
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
miguelc@...