Re: Primary Stem Formants: -*H, -*i/y, -*u/w

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 16:32:00 -0500, "Patrick Ryan"
<proto-language@...> wrote:

>----- 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.

On the contrary, it's extremely likely.

>> > 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 First, Pokorny uses a hopelessly outdated reconstruction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
>(*&)?

The most important thing (Pinault's law) is that it didn't.
The 'why' would seem to follow quite naturally from the fact
that /j/ is a semivowel.

>***
>
>> > 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)-?

On the following syllable.

One would expect a paradigm:

N *wérh1-to:r, A. *wérh1-tor-m.
G *wr.h1-tér-os, I. *wr.h1-tr-éh1

This would have given pre-Greek:

*wéreto:r, *wéretora
*wre:téros, *wre:tré:

Regularized to rhé:to:r, rhé:tros.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
miguelc@...