From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 57009
Date: 2008-04-07
----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] RE: Primary Stem Formants: -*H, -*i/y, -*u/w
> On 2008-04-07 20:21, Patrick Ryan wrote:
>
> > (6.) *werH1-, 'say ceremoniously, speak'
> >
> > It will be my contention that:
> >
> > a. *wer- is the root; and
> >
> > b. -*H(1) is a root extension.
> >
> > I have put the subscript in parentheses to indicate my unwillingness
> > to accept a threefold classification of the 'laryngeal'.
>
> And your contention is based on what?
***
Many illogicalities which are tolerated to allow the theory to be
maintained: e.g. 'laryngals' color short vowels ([*e]) but not long vowels
([*ee]). I would even accept 'breaking' but _no_ effect? Totally unlikely.
***
> > 1. My first argument is that there are only two root-forms in PIE:
> > *CV- and *CVC(V)-.
>
> Who says that? I have yet to see a PIE lexical root of the form *CV-
***
Unless you do not consider pronouns 'roots', *me, *te, *so, *to, *ne, *se,
*kWé/o, *yo.
***
> > 2. Pokorny recognizes a root *wer-; will you say he is in error?
>
> Yes, he is. First, Pokorny uses a hopelessly outdated reconstruction
> system without any laryngeals, so what else did you expect? LIV has
> three different roots reconstructed as *wer-, but none of them matches
> *werh1- semantically. If *wer- appears anywhere, it's in forms like the
> *-je/o- present *werje/o- (Gk. eíro:, Hitt. weriyezzi), but the loss of
> syllable-initial laryngeals before *j is was regular already in PIE
> (Pinault's Law).
***
How does Pinault explain why the 'laryngeal' did not simply become schwa
(*&)?
***
> > 3. Pokorny records a form *wre:-; do you dispute that it exists?
>
> Of course I do. The primary source of Gk. (*w)re:- is *wr.h1-.
>
> > 4. If you admit that it exists (as *wreH-, of course), how do you
> > explain it from*werH-?
>
> Like above. *wr.h1- > (*w)re:- is a well-known regular change in Greek.
***
I find that explanation highly unsatisfactory. Where is the stress-accent in
*wr.H(1)-?
My suggestion, *wréH(1)- is far simpler; and shows a stress-accent where
there out to be one.
***
Patrick