Re: Latin -idus as from dH- too

Are you Miguel de la Mancha?

That is almost plausible except the stark difference in meaning between the
two roots (*pa(:)H- and *po(:)H-) precludes any need for and prohibits a
relationship. I have addressed this in an email that seemed held up for a
while.


Patrick

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <miguelc@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 7:32 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Latin -idus as from dH- too


> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:59:46 +0100, Piotr Gasiorowski
> <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> >On 2008-03-17 07:16, Brian M. Scott wrote:
> >
> >> What makes this clear? If there actually are two roots
> >> here, Gk. <pô:u> and <poimé:n> 'a shepherd' would seem to
> >> point the other way. Given the close semantic connections
> >> among 'protect', 'herd', and 'nourish', it seems much easier
> >> to see a single root *peh2- with o-grade *poh2-. (And in
> >> the other direction I believe that Hittite /pahs-/ 'to
> >> protect' tends to suggest *peh2-, not *peh3-.)
> >
> >My personal hypothesis (still tentative and rather speculative, I hasten
> >to admit) is that <poimé:n> and Lith. piemuo (plus Finn. paimen, which
> >must be a loan from Baltic) are based on the iterative stem *poh2-éje/o-
> >(*poh2i-mé:n), hence the pretonic o-grade and the *i, as in e.g.
> >*moni-tó- from the causative *mon-éje/o-. The only problem is the rarity
> >of such formations (but I believe I have a few good examples and may be
> >able to find a few more). If my guess is correct, there's no need to
> >posit *poh3-, *pah2i, etc. The good old *pah2- root will suffice.
>
> Lithuanian piemuõ (Dauks^a píemuo) is quite a problematic
> word. The modern form with mobile accent must be secondary,
> as we only have Baltic *ai > ie under the stress. The
> original accentuation must have been píemuo. Contrasting
> this with Grk. poimé:n we see that two things must have
> happened: (1) the stress was retracted to the root by Hirt's
> law in Baltic; (2) the hysterodynamic ending *-me:n was
> replaced by the more common proterodynamic ending *-mo:n.
> This, in my opinion, presupposes a PIE form *poiH-mé:n. A
> form *poh2i-mé:n would not have yielded an acute in
> Balto-Slavic (but a circumflex, as in me:m-só > mêNso
> "meat", o:u-jó- > jâje "egg", tra:u-Ha: > tra:vá "grass",
> the acc.sg. ending -ah2m, etc.), and would not have
> triggered Hirt's law (the laryngeal in *oRH remained
> consonantal, unlike *erH > *er&, cf. Slav. pê"la "she sang"
> < *poiH-láh2).
>
> That leaves two questions: (1) what's the relationship with
> the root *pah2(-s)-? (2) what is an o-grade doing in
> pretonic position?
>
> The forms listed by Pokorny under po:(i)- clearly obey the
> rules for "long diphthong" roots laid out by Rasmussen:
> (1) before single consonant: *poiH-
> *poiH-me:n => Grk. poimé:n, poíme:n; Lith. piemuõ, píemuo
> (2) before double/final consonant: *poH-
> *poH-s => Skt. -pa:
> *poH-t(i) => Skt. pa:-ti
> *poH-tro- => Skt. pa:-tra, Gmc. fo:dr
> *poH-mn => Grk. po:ma
> (3) before vowel: *poHi-
> *poHi-u => Skt. pa:yu-, Grk. pôu
>
> However, the expected zero-grade forms (pHi- and p&-) are
> rare (only in the Skt. compund words nr.'-pi:-ti and
> nr.-p-a-), and we have apparent full-grade (o-grade) in
> unstressed position in *poiH-mé:n, *poHi-ú-, etc.
>
> Perhaps then the suggestion that these forms are derived
> from the causative-iterative *poh2-ei(h1)-e/o-, with
> non-ablauting /o/, producing a root *poh2-i- (alternating
> with *poh2-, *poih2-) can be correct.
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> miguelc@...
>
>