From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 55443
Date: 2008-03-18
----- Original Message -----
From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> A) The Greek rythmic rules trigger the apparition of the long
>vowels (etc...) by preserving the original accentuation
What a load of crap.
Miguel
============
To Miguel
It's not worse that your theory
about *e: in pre-PIE.
Semitic probably lenghtened stressed vowels
Starting from a situation where all vowels were short.
Arnaud
=============
>b) Next the original accent of the basic form WAS ON THE LAST
>SYLLABLE
*dhug&2té:r, yes.
==========
ok
Arnaud
========
Yes it is: Pre-Greek *thúgate:r.
=========
What's this ?
Vocative or Nom ?
Voc *thúgater
Nom *thugaté:r
I don't think **thúgate:r could exist.
Arnaud
===========
Indeed: *p&2té:r, *méh2te:r and *dhug&2té:r are
reconstructed with long vowels because "each one see a long
e: there". We see it in Greek (thugáte:r), we see it in
Sanskrit (duhitá:), we see it in Avestan (duGða:), we see it
in Gothic (dauhtar, not *dauhtr), in Balto-Slavic (dukte:~,
*dUktí), in Tocharian (tka:cer, not *tka:cär), etc.
===================
It can be shared innovations.
Arnaud
===================
> pat /e':/ r => /e': -> e'e/
> ma':t /e:/ r
> [vocative] tHu'gater => no need to change something
What "necessity" is there to lengthen the vowel in +patér or
+mé:ter? Was the vowel lengthened in sophós or in thêres? I
suggest you learn some Greek.
====================
Lengthening the vowel is the only way
to express Nominative -s with root
ending with -r where -rs# is impossible.
The same problem happens with
your belove *yekwr and *gwher words.
Arnaud
================
So how do you explain the accusative thugatéra?
==========
Starting form *dhugH2°tér
(Post anatolian) PIE :
Nom *dhugH2°tér > *dhugH2°té:r
(Nom -s converted into e:r)
Voc *dhu'gH2°ter
(pragmatic stress on first syllable)
Acc *dhugH2°tér-n. > *dhugH2°téra
(no need to lengthen)
Arnaud
============