Re: [tied] Water, pre/postpositions, somewhat OT
- --- In email@example.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@w...> wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 10:26:37 +0000, tgpedersennouns,
> <tgpedersen@h...> wrote:
> >> The root of <ipini> and its variants such as <ibeni>,
> >> <imini> is more difficult to pin down. My guess is that
> >> i-pin-i represents *e-b(V)hin-i, while i-ben-i, with i-
> >> pointing to a high vowel in the root, is *e-beh(i)n-i or
> >> *e-bain-. <imini> is straightforward from *e-bin-i. If we
> >> combine all these, we get a possible root *-behin- or
> >> *-bahin-, where /h/ can be read as the hiatus left by the
> >> loss of an earlier consonant (not /n/).
> >I recognize that line of reasoning wrt. /e/ > /i/ in the verbal
> >prefixes from Trask. Could the same rule have applied also on
>You have no way of knowing that. You reconstruct /e/ > /i/ for the
> Apparently not.
verbal prefix because you know
1) it's a prefix
2) in the same place a majority of verbs have /e/
Therefore it's natural to try to seek a common origin for both /i-/
and /e-/ in verbs.
The same situation doesn't apply in nouns. Therefore if there had
been a rule /e/ > /i/ in nouns, we wouldnt know.
>If I were to claim that <ibai> was related to one the other words
> >so that ibai < *ebai (there's nothing to stop one from assuming a
> >lost h- in all verbs)?
> What do you mean?
that came up in the discussion, the initial h- of the oldest
documented form would be a problem. I'd have to postulate in initial
h- for the other words as well.
I notice that you yourself
have proposed that the prefix /e-/ or /i-/ derives from /He-/ in your
Pre-Pre-Basque. I assume /H/ is some laryngeal? It might have left
the initial /h/ in the oldest forms of <ibai>.
> >In that case the two roots are getting pretty close.Now that's a good question ;-) I started out with <ibai> and <behe>,
> Which two roots?
but several other words have come up in the discusion. As far as I'm
concerned, any development that would get any of these roots closer
to <ibai> is progress, since it's that word I would derive the others
- On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 10:39:55 +0000, tgpedersen
>So you're saying *(t)egi + *-se > *etse? It doesn't sound right to me.Amazing.
>I could believe *(t)egi + *-ze > *etse.
Words ending in -i drop the vowel in their combining form.
If the word then ends in a plosive (-b, -d, -g, rarely (-p),
-t, -k), the plosive combines with the initial segment of
the suffix/second elemt as follows:
-C#s > -ts-
-C#V- > -tV-
-C#n- > -nn- > -n-
-C#l- > -ll- > -l-
-C#b-/p- > -p-
-C#d-/t- > -t-
-C#g-/k- > -k-
E.g. begi "eye":
begi + zain "nerve" > betzain "optical nerve"
begi + sein "boy" > betsein "pupil"
begi + ile "hair" > betile "eyelash"
begi + buru "head" > bepuru "eyebrow"
begi + gain "top" > bekain "eyebrow"
In the case of *(t)egi:
*(t)egi + -se > etse, palatalized etxe
*(t)egi + *-ze > *etze, palatalized etxe
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal