From: Andrew Jarrette
Message: 63577
Date: 2009-03-05
>So Sanskrit <kuha>, <kutra>, <kutas> are from *kWdhe, *kWtre/o, *kWtos and not from *kWudhe, *kWutre/o, *kWutos as I've seen in some early works on IE languages? Fine, but I wonder why we see zero grade in these words but not words like *tdha, *ttra, *ttas, *pkas, or other similar combinations of obstruent + obstruent. Were forms with and without vowel in free variation and the forms that remained were any forms that ended up with a vowel between the obstruents, whether and original vowel or the vocalization of a labiovelar articulation? Yes, I know there are words with obstruent + obstruent in Avestan (isn't the imperative of "be" <zdi> or something?), and in Sanskrit when neighbouring sounds can support it (like <bapsati> 3rd sg. pres. indic. of <bhas->), but these are usually in cases where the resulting combination of consonants is either fricative + plosive, plosive + fricative, or geminated consonant, and therefore can form a single syllable instead of inviting the insertion of a schwa and thereby adding an extra syllable. AFAIK, only in this case where *kW vocalizes to <ku> before an obstruent do we see a reduced grade of obstruent + obstruent developed where it would normally produce a difficult-to-pronounce consonant combination. The observed development seems a bit oddly selective to me, so it still makes me wonder whether there might have been a *u after the *kW, despite the articulatory difficulty of such a combination, and the structural unlikelihood of the occurrence of such a consonant + vowel sequence. But I guess from what you've said the matter is closed?
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@>
> wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> According to Ringe, citing Weiss, the contrast between
> >> velars and labiovelars cannot be reconstructed before *w,
> >> *u, or *u:. He also notes that *KW > *K in the development
> >> from PIE to PGmc.
>
> > Surely you mean *KW > *K before *u or *u:?
>
> Oops. Sorry about that; I've been rather badly under the weather
> for a week and forgot to finish the sentence. What he actually
> says is 'next to *u'. Since *-KWu(:)- isn't reconstructed for PIE
> about the only source of Pre-PGmc. *-KWu- is PIE *-KWR-, where *RIs there no chance that Latin <frui:> can go back to a *bHruHgH-, an alternate form beside *bHruHg- of Germanic, like *bheugh- of Gmc *beugan beside *bheug- of Latin <fu:go:>, Gk <pheugo:>, Skt <bhuj->?
> is a syllabic resonant. He gives one probable example in which
> Pre-PGmc. *u precedes the labiovelar:
>
> (post-)PIE *bHruhgW- 'use, enjoy' (cf. Lat. frui: < *fru:vi:,
> participle <fructus>) > *bHru:gW- > PGmc. *bru:kanã (cf. OE
> bru:can, OHG bru:hhan; Goth. bru:kjan has been remodeled on
> the basis of the verb's weak past).