Re: Stacking up on standard works

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <sean@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <sean@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <sean@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > There's no reason to expect a regular change for either above; quadru- shows tr > dr , dr > tr in taeter , maybe vitrum , and definitely:
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > > (showing it's Italic), and either dhr > tr or something odd in trahere, among some that are unclear.
> > > >
> > > > I derive _trahere_ from *treh2-g^H-.
> > > >
> > > What reg. rule would you assume for hg() > g() ? Nothing I've seen looks reg.
> > >
> > Zero-grade *tr.h2g^H- > *tra:h- followed by vowel-shortening before /h/.
> >
> What vowel-shortening before /h/ is attested?
>

_dehinc_, _dehi:sco:_, _prohibeo:_ with prefixes occurring long elsewhere. Sihler considers this shortening a case of the rule "vocalis ante vocalem corripitur" which /h/ could not block.

It is striking that _de:beo:_ and _praebeo:_ generally occur contracted WITHOUT prefix-shortening, but not _prohibeo:_. The original 1sg. pres. ind. forms would have been subject to syncope by Exon's Law, *de:habeo: > *de:hbeo: > *de:beo:, etc. Presumably the first two verbs were very commonly used in the 1sg., the third less so, leading to generalization of the Exon forms only in the first two.

Of course, for an optionalist, there is no point in inquiring after reasons for irregular outcomes; all can be dismissed as simply "opt.".

DGK