[tied] Re: Lith. žinóti - why not a root g^neHH-?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> On 2009-10-13 00:09, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > Lat. (g^)no:sco: is reconstructed *g^neh3-ske/o with an unusual
> > full-grade in the root considered as 'a late formation'
> >
> > Same 'late formation' is assume for Albanian njoh reconstructed this
> > time as *g^ne:h3-ske/o (under 'the influence of' *g^ne:h3-s)
> >
> > The standard form should have been *g^nh3-ske/o but I don't know if is
> > attested somewhere (I think that is unattested)
>
> Not necessarily. If it was based on or influenced by the acrostatic stem
> *g^ne:h3-s-/*g^noh3-s-, the full grade is expected, cf. Av. xVafsa- <
> *swep-sk^e/o-, from a Narten root.
>
> Piotr

a) Could you explain what is the distinction between 'based-on' and 'influence' here:

for 'influence' --> I could understand 'analogy'

But how 'to base' the *R(z)-sk- verbal formations on acrostatic stem?

Supposing that we accept R(e:)-sk-, R(e)-sk- forms on PIE times : another questions is : could we have 'in the same time' both of them : *g^ne:h3-ske/o (> njoh) and *g^neh3-ske/o ((g)no:sco:)?

No link to this: but I see no reason, not to have *g^nh3-ske/o- formation here too: but the reality is quite opposite to this : no form *g^nh3-ske/o- is attested in the derived languages...


b) what is your opinion about žinóti ? I mean the source of a: inside?


c) do you think that CEHH- roots are theoretically possible?

Thanks for all your feedback,
Marius