On 2009-06-12 20:48, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> You will find a LOT of Verbal/Nouns/Adjective Examples of
> ROOT-TYPE-A CREH-
> ROOT-TYPE-B CERH-
I have already said I don't doubt the existence of secondary "grade I"
variants of *CReC- roots (not necessary with a final laryngeal!). There
are problems with Rix's rule, though. First, some of his data can be
explained otherwise. For example, I have published my own analysis of
*gWíh3w-e/o- and its relatives, where I do away with the "grade II"
forms altogether (Rix does not consider laryngeal breaking as a possible
source of much of the Greek evidence) and analyse the "grade I" as a
late analogical form based on a "neo-root". Secondly, some of the
examples don't fit his rule (e.g. the _preconsonantal_ ocurrence of
secondary *h1erh1- and *pelh1-). Thirdly, there are counterexamples like
perf. *pe-plóh1-e rather than +pe-pólh1-e. I remain unconvinced that
there's anything regular there. At best, sporadic misplacement of the
root vowel no matter if the suffix is vowel-initial or not.
> ===================================================================
> Also that g^noh1- derived forms are clearly OK, and there is no need to
> strangulate their obvious 'genitor' semantism
> ===================================================================
Even Rix doesn't propose any morphophonological rule that could turn
*g^enh1- into *g^noh1-.
Piotr