Re: Stacking up on standard works

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <sean@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:


> > > 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.
>

This is Sean Whalen. My e-mail isn't working right.


That change is much too late, after ae > E: (praehendo: > prehendo: ), probably after h > 0 , and couldn't affect tractus , tracta:re , etc., which wouldn't have short a if you were right.

> 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.
>

Most compounds are (re)formed regularly after Exon's Law, among others. These are probably from a much later V-contraction after h > 0 .

>

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.".
>

I look for the truth. Not all is opt. because some is according to me.