Re: o-grade thoughts
> And I also believe that these verbal stems of the hi-conjugationAlternative proposal for that nominal ablaut, independent of
> were nominal in nature. Cf. the words of the "language of bird
> Now watch me do tricks with my new nominal prefix:
> PPIE *pad- -> PIE *ped-
> PPIE *a-pad- -> *i-pod- -> PIE *pod-
> Nice, huh? I get this free of charge by positing the prefix.
> This ablaut relation is particularly hard to crack, since
> there is normally not any surroundings to the root to "blame"
> for the ablaut. The attempts I've seen to derive it from
> different cases have not been convincing.
other IE phenomena:
Piotr observes that the connecting vowel -i- in composites can
be accounted for as part of a PPIE *-a-a- -> PIE *-i-o- rule.
As a consequence we would have:
PPIE *pad- -> PIE *ped- "foot"
PPIE *X-a pad -> PIE *Xipod- "X-footer"
from which languages might generalize one way or the other.
- further from the same text:
It is now generally accepted that the Proto-Semitic aspectual system
is to be reconstructed to resemble that found in Akkadian. This system
contains two prefixal forms, one *ya-prus 'he separated' (perfective),
and another, *ya-paras 'he is separating' (imperfective). The third
prefix conjugation exists only in Akkadian as the perfect form
i-p-t-aras 'he has separated'. Its Proto-Semitic status has been
proposed by Voigt (1987) on the basis of further evidence from Berber
and Bedawye (North Cushitic). Of fundamental importance for the later
developments in Semitic is the ambivalence of the reconstructed
'middle-perfect' form *ya-p-t-aras (intransitive *ya-q-t-arVb 'he is
close' and 'he got close') between the perfect and the mediopassive
perfective (cf. Bubenik 2003).
Akkadian, preterite singular
PIE, perfect singular
*-h2-e -> *-a
*-th2-e -> *-ta
*-Ø-e -> *-e