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

Re: Prenasalization, not ejectives cause of Winter's law?

Expand Messages
  • tgpedersen
    ... I think I might just have confused the issue. Maybe what I want to argue for is that *-NgW- (standard: *-gW-) went *-´NgW- - *-´h3w- *-NgW´- -
    Message 1 of 54 , Sep 30, 2006
      --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
      > On 2006-09-30 18:36, tgpedersen wrote:
      > > Let me remind you of your ingenious emendation of *gWih3w-e/o-
      > > "live" to a reduplicated *gWigW-e/o-.
      > *gWí-gWw-e/o-, to be precise.
      > > You ascribe that to
      > > dissimilation, but note that the *gWigW- part violates the root
      > > constraint against roots of the form *DeD-.
      > The constraint, which is dissimilatory anyway, didn't affect
      > transparent compounds and reduplications. For exaple, the aorist
      > root *doh3- produced the reduplicated present
      > *di-dóh3-ti/*dé-d(h3)-n.ti, and the perfect of *deik^- was
      > *de-dóik^-e, etc. But I agree that in an obscured reduplication,
      > no longer regarded as related to something structurally
      > simpler, root-internal constraints would possibly have applied.
      > > This is interesting,
      > > since it might give an insight into how PIE dealt with
      > > 'perpetrators' which broke the rule, whether they were loan or
      > > composition. In other words, from /gW/ you might get /w/ and /h3/.
      > > So was it once *stergW- that was hit by something? Does Lat.
      > > stercus "manure" have something to do with it?
      > Not impossible, but why was it hit? There's no other media in sight.

      I think I might just have confused the issue. Maybe what I want to
      argue for is that *-NgW- (standard: *-gW-) went
      *-´NgW- -> *-´h3w-
      *-NgW´- -> *-ngW´-
      so that it was the normal course of events, not an application of
      a classical root constraint? There might be a ton of counterexamples,
      but I'll plead a Meillet on that: the weirder the data, the truer it
      must be. We might explain 'n-infixes' by sticking to the II data and
      calling them morphological, but that doesn't explain how they came

    • Torsten
      ... cf. Danish ravn (
      Message 54 of 54 , Mar 19, 2012
        --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Joao S. Lopes" <josimo70@...> wrote:
        > Usually crows and ravens have onomatopoeics names with GR-, KR-.
        cf. Danish ravn (< *hraβan), but Swedish korp "raven"

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.