Re: Laryngeals: arguments from typology?

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 11:34 PM, gprosti <gprosti@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Edgard Bikelis <bikelis@...> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 4:39 PM, gprosti <gprosti@...> wrote:
>> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@> wrote:
>> >> One of the most beatiful examples, for its simplicity, is RV á:sat-
>> >> 'unreal', the negated pres.part. od 'to be' < *n.-h1sn.t-
>> >>
>> >> Piotr
>> >>
>> > Couldn't this be due to analogy? A CVC root plus the negative prefix would have the form aCCat-, with two moras in the initial syllable. A VC root would normally only have one mora in this syllable, but maybe the initial vowel was lengthened (giving a:sat-, etc.) in order to maintain the two-mora pattern.
>> >
>>
>> If the alpha privativum had an intermediary state as [*an-], where did
>> that nasal go, and the rhythm, in words like a-mRtá-, a-zatru?
>
> a-mRtá- doesn't contradict the pattern of <a-> + <CVC-> = <aCC->. Pardon my ignorance, but, which root is the <-zatru> of <a-zatru> from?

First, I misunderstood your aCC for an implicit anC, so that is why I
tried to show it could not be so, but you didn't say otherwise, so
nevermind ; ).

Now, if the /r/ in amRta is syllabic, how could it obey your aCC
pattern, if it is aCV? Likewise:

ámartya- < *.n-mert-io-
apútra- < *.n-pu-tlo-

As for zatru, that is a very good question!

Edgard.