From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 54380
Date: 2008-03-01
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <miguelc@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] PIE meaning of the Germanic dental preterit
> 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@...
***
Thank you, Miguel, for commenting in your usual knowledgeable way.
Your information certainly puts a crimp in my proposed reconstruction of
*bho:(H)i-.
So, if I can summarize what I understand from your data, the earliest PIE
form could be *bheH(2)i- or *bheiH(2)-, with a considerable amount of
apparently meaningless variation between the two. Is that correct?
And the forms pointing to *o(:) should be regarded as perfects being used as
presents.
In the case of Lithuanian <baidý-ti>, the main form under discussion, it
appears the perfect is evidenced in the first of the two alternating forms:
*bho:(H)i-dhe:(H)-, which, in reduced grade, would yield *bhoi-dhé:-, the
form I suggested albeit gotten by a different route.
I guess the big question I have, Miguel, do you believe we have *bhoi- (from
**bho:í-) because it is the postulated endingless locative, or should we not
have expected *bh&i- (zero-grade) if it is not a locative?
Patrick