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

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

>
> On 2009-10-13 23:43, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > I) *g^nh3.h1-sk^e/o- (so a regular R(z)-sk^e/o-) would have been given
> > Grk. gnó:sko: (h3. > o) and maybe even the Latin (g)no:sco: (h3. > o)
> > The same *g^nh3.h1-sk^e/o- would have been given regularly Alb. njoh <
> > *gna:sk- < *gnah1sk- (with h3. > a)
>
> I think the nasal, being a sonorant, would have been more likely to
> undergo vocalisation in PIE than the adjacent obstruent, poducing
> something like *g^n.h3[h1]sk^e/o- (with the *h1 deleted from the surface
> form).

As you know, on the initial position RHC- > RH.C- and not R.HC
Next I would say that a gn-/g^n- cluster is 'like an initial cluster-because it can be pronounced as a whole' (-> I mean 'it can be pronounced as a whole ' like sn- etc..)
Due to this a split in syllables:
g^nh3.h1-sk^e/o- is more plausible than
g^n.h3-h1sk^e/o- or *g^n.h1h3-sk^e/o- because g^n- can 'be pronounced as consonants' as I said.

But the vocalisation could be secondary if we consider the output as result of a Cluster RHH etc... please see below...

> The Latin development proposed above, *&3 > o, is ad hoc, cf.
> datum < *d&3-tom. The zero-grade of the 'know' root in Latin is
> reflected as <gna:-> in <gna:rus> etc.

You are right regarding CHC, RHC or CRHC clusters

but we have here an RHH or CRHH cluster where the output could be similar or Not...:)

as a hint: yes, we have (g)na:rus < *g^nh3-ro- BUT we would expect as well to have a R(z)-to- formations where *g^nh3-to- > (g)na:tus , no?

BUT (surprize) the real word is (g)no:tus (so a full-grade 'was supposed' for (g)no:tus etc...ONLY to explain why we have o: in (g)no:tus etc...)

TO RESUME we would have:
if *g^nh3h1-to- > (g)no:tus so CRHHC > CRo:C (or only for CRh3HC)
and *g^nh3h1-ske/o- > (g)no:sco: so again CRHHC > CRo:C (or only for CRh3HC)
and *g^nh3h1-ro- > (g)na:rus so CRHHR > CRa:R or maybe h1 was droped HRo- > Ro- and we have only the known CRHR > CRa:R

> > II) If h3. > a in Baltic: *g^n.-n-h3.h1-ti- would have been given
> > regularly žin-nah1-ti- > žina:-ti > žinoti
>
> The nasal infix is regularly inserted before the _last_ consonant of the
> root, so one would expect *g^n.h3-ne-h1-ti instead.

Yes, you are right here, sorry : I wrongly thought that

R(C1,C2)-n-infix-R(C3,C4) (sorry)

in addition too :
R(C1,C2)-n-infix-R(C3) and
R(C1)-n-infix-R(C2)


In this case we would need to consider that he have an-h2 in the root...in place of the -h1-

*g^n.h3-ne-h2-ti would be Ok, so the root 'was' *g^neh3h2- and the other derivations are not affected ...

> > III) For any o-grade formation I expect that *g^noh3h1- > *g^noh3
> > (based on the lost of laryngeals in o-grades)

I mean here similarly to -oRH- > -oR- to have -oHH- > -oH-

> Other objections apart, a form with *o from *e coloured by *h3 is not an
> o-grade but the phonetic realisation of an underlying e-grade.

you are right, but where I said something else?

> Piotr

Marius