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

On 2009-10-13 19:19, alexandru_mg3 wrote:

> 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?

*R(e)-sk^e- presents are sometimes paired with *R(e:)-s- stems (not
necessarily aorists; there were also marginally preserved s-presents).
Cf. Lat. pa:sco: < *pah2-sk^e/o- and pa:stor < *pah2s-tor-. It has been
suggested that *-sk^e- presents are ancient (pre-PIE) *-je/o-
derivatives of *-s- stems, though the phonological details of the
development are problematic. According to Jasanoff, the original form of
the sigmatic suffix was *-h1s- (as in desideratives and futures). If so,
perhaps we could posit a pre-PIE metathetic develoment like *-hsj- >
*-shj- > *-sç- > *sk^-.

> 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:)?

We could have *g^ne:h3-s-/*g^noh2-s- and *g^noh3-sk^e/o-, with
*g^ne:h3-sk^e/o- as an analogical byform. Why not? Real languages often
tolerate competing forms "in the same time".

> 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...

Gk. gnó:sko: is ambiguous; it could reflect the zero grade, but I agree
that the bulk of the evidence points to a full grade.

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

It looks to me like an original nasal-infixed present, *g^n.-ne-h3-,
reworked under the analogical influence of the far more numerous verb
stems in *-ne-h2-.

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

I can't think of any certain examples. PIE had rather strong
morpheme-structure constraints allowing only a few types of clusters in
this position. If Jasanoff is right, *g^ne(:)h3-s- could be rewritten as
*g^ne(:)h3-h1s-, but here of course there is a morphological boundary
separating the laryngeals and the second one wouldn't have been realised
phonetically.

Piotr