On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 22:19:51 -0000, "alexandru_mg3"
<
alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:
>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
><miguelc@...> wrote:
>
>> >a) "bo:id as source of baid-(yti) in Lithuanian"
>> >
>
>I need to highlight again this to you :
> a long diphtong /o:i/ will not give /ai/ in Lithuanian
Ah, you may have a point there. In the Auslaut *-õi gives
-ui (or -uo) in the o-stem Dsg. [whereas -ãi > -ai in the
a:-stem Dsg and the o-stem Npl. (from NApl. n. *-ah2 + N m.
*-(o)j), and lengthened *-ojs > *-ajs > *-a:is gives -ais in
the o-stem Ipl.]. I'm not sure what *-o:i- < *-oHi- would
give in the Inlaut (or the Auslaut for that matter, where it
does not occur). I'm guessing -uõ-, but I can't exclude
-ai~-.
In any case, the form with the acute (Latv. bai~dît) surely
comes from *bhoih2dh-, as expected. The odd one is Lith.
bai~d- with circumflex.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> > or regarding
>> >
>> >b) "your bHh2i or bHih2" (this is like to to say that 'something
>is
>> >black or white') in addition there is no *bHhi- possible in PIE
>>
>> Why not? It's simply the zero grade of *bheHi-.
>
>
>Because *bHh- being impossible to be pronounced ->and because, in
>this particular case, we have also a y/w/r/l/m/n 'around' the
>metathesis took place immediately : *bHih-.
>
>So it's an impossible syllabification
There still are a couple of forms with /i/ < *h2i instead of
/i:/ < *ih2. Baltic bijóti ~ bijât and Avestan biBiuua:h-
can be explained otherwise (*bhih2-ah2-, syllabified as
*bhi-h2ah2-, and defective spelling for biBi:uua:h- = Skt.
bibhi:va:n-), but Greek pithe:kos "monkey", if it belongs
here, looks like a genuine case of *bhh2idh- (which probably
was pronounced /bHidH/, with assimilation of /x/ into the
aspiration of /bh/).
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
miguelc@...