From: gprosti
Message: 66067
Date: 2010-04-09
>The verbal root of <amr.tá-> begins with a consonant, and, as I suggested before, the two-mora pattern may not have been "enforced" in these cases. Also, I'm not sure if this is a modern development, but some people pronounce OInd. syllabic <r> as [ri] (as in <prithivi:> rather than <prthivi:>).
> 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?
>
> ámartya- < *.n-mert-io-
> apútra- < *.n-pu-tlo-
>
> As for zatru, that is a very good question!
>
> Edgard.
>