Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

ka and k^a [was: [tied] *kW- "?"]

Expand Messages
  • Grzegorz Jagodzinski
    The discussion here is about *ka, *k^a etc. in PIE. But who said they were really present?Please consult the Lubotsky s article Against a
    Message 1 of 207 , Sep 21 4:54 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      The discussion here is about *ka, *k^a etc. in PIE. But who said they were
      really present?

      Please consult the Lubotsky's article "Against a Proto-Indo-European phoneme
      *a", available on https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/2662. Of
      course, if no *a's were present in PIE, all the discussion on uvular or
      pharyngeal character of *k/*g/*gh is just groundless.

      Of the previously mentioned by me, Lubotsky gives the following
      reconstructions: *bheH2g^- for bhajati / phagein, *k^eH2d- for cadere/├žad-,
      *g^heH2n-s- ~ *g^hH2n-s- for goose.

      Grzegorz J.



      ___________________________________________________________
      To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
    • glen gordon
      I m still wondering whether it s possible that the stems that _seem_ to show *a rather than expected *e when neighbouring the marked series (*q, *G, *GH,
      Message 207 of 207 , Oct 3, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        I'm still wondering whether it's possible that the
        stems that _seem_ to show *a rather than expected *e
        when neighbouring the "marked" series (*q, *G, *GH,
        *h2) are originally long.

        So far, I can't convincingly rewrite traditionally
        written *legH- as *leGH- without explaining the
        odd e-vocalism in place of expected colouration. But
        I so enjoy regularity and I've been in shambles trying
        to find a way to restore order once again. Then I
        gots to thinkin'... :)

        Here's an idea. You have some verbs that have
        special inherent semantic qualities that would later
        affect how they surface in a new durative-aorist
        system. Some verbs would be naturally durative,
        and some aorist, of course. However, there could be
        other features that could further split up the
        array of verbs such that a special subset of verbs
        would evolve from lengthened roots (inherently
        aorist ones?) to the shorter fullgrade.

        Since this shift from an undifferentiated "mi-
        conjugation" to a durative-aorist contrast would
        happen just _after_ the start of IE's fragmentation,
        this hypothetical class might have evolved from
        *Ce:C- to *CeC- without being coloured by any of
        the marked series... because the marked series no
        longer existed at that point! Sound nifty? :)

        So, an original *le:GH- would fail to show colouration
        because the vowel is long. After IE starts to
        fragment, it changes to *le:gH- when the marked
        series merges with the plain in most of the dialects.
        Then the lengthening is finally done away with in
        order to confuse later IEists. Hence *legH-.

        I just can't quite figure out what semantic class
        these verbs might all share. Anybody have input?


        = gLeN




        __________________________________
        Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
        http://mail.yahoo.com
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.