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

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

Expand Messages
  • P&G
    ... To repeat myself, root constraints are only tendencies, not rigid inviolable rules. There are 9 fairly certain roots of the form DeD in PIE: *bed to
    Message 1 of 11 , Sep 30, 2006
      > note that the *gWigW- part violates the root
      >constraint against roots of the form *DeD-.

      To repeat myself, root "constraints" are only tendencies, not rigid
      inviolable rules.
      There are 9 fairly certain roots of the form DeD in PIE:
      *bed to swell Pokorny p96
      *bend tip Pokorny p96
      *de:g to grasp Pokorny p183
      *g'eid to suck Pokorny p356
      *geid to stab Pokorny p356
      *geig' to stab Pokorny p356
      *gleg soft Pokorny p 401
      *gred to sratch Pokorny p 405
      *gWreig' to sleep Pokorny p485

      Peter
    • Piotr Gasiorowski
      ... That should go almost without saying, especially if the constraint was the consequence of some special phonetic properties of pre-PIE rather tha PIE itself
      Message 2 of 11 , Oct 1, 2006
        On 2006-10-01 08:59, P&G wrote:

        > To repeat myself, root "constraints" are only tendencies, not rigid
        > inviolable rules.

        That should go almost without saying, especially if the constraint was
        the consequence of some special phonetic properties of pre-PIE rather
        tha PIE itself (and if most PIE roots were inherited from those times).
        If we accept the traditional reconstruction of the mediae as
        more-or-less plain voiced stops, it's hard to see what could have
        prevented them from co-occurring. Indeed, nothing prevents them in
        reduplications, though typical Grassmann-type dissimilatory processes
        operate normally in such environments, cf. Skt. dádHa:mi, Gk. títHe:mi.
        I just agree with Torsten that it doesn't seem impossible for a
        "neo-root" to follow a conspicuous dissimilatory pattern even if it is
        no longer phonetically grounded. I have myself toyed from time to time
        with the idea that the PIE 'thrush' word comes from *dru-sd-o- >
        *truzdo- (with various branch-specific reshapings), describing the
        bird's habit of singing from a high perch; cf. RV dru-sad- 'sitting in a
        tree'.

        > There are 9 fairly certain roots of the form DeD in PIE:
        > *bed to swell Pokorny p96
        > *bend tip Pokorny p96
        > *de:g to grasp Pokorny p183
        > *g'eid to suck Pokorny p356
        > *geid to stab Pokorny p356
        > *geig' to stab Pokorny p356
        > *gleg soft Pokorny p 401
        > *gred to sratch Pokorny p 405
        > *gWreig' to sleep Pokorny p485

        "Fairly certain" is, however, an overstatement with regard to at least
        some of them. For example, *gleg^- (sic) 'soft, tender' is attested from
        Balto-Slavic and North Germanic only (a distribution that hardly
        guarantees PIE status), shows no Winterian effects in BSl. (which casts
        doubt on the reconstruction of a final media rather than media
        aspirata), and the Germanic cognates have either -nk- or -kk-, never -k-
        alone (in a root which should not invite a nasal infix, so *-g^Hn- >
        *-kk- by Kluge's Law and *-nk- by pre-nasal strengthening and pre-Kluge
        metathesis is at least a possibility). So, if a common proto-root can be
        reconstructed at all, the optimal solution is something like *gleg^H-.

        Piotr
      • tgpedersen
        ... Or the reduplicated root arose at a time where it was still either * gWí- gW-a- (preglottalized) - * gW-íh3w-a- or *NgWí-NgW-a- (prenasalized) -
        Message 3 of 11 , Oct 1, 2006
          > I just agree with Torsten that it doesn't seem impossible for a
          > "neo-root" to follow a conspicuous dissimilatory pattern even if
          > it is no longer phonetically grounded.

          Or the reduplicated root arose at a time where it was still either
          *'gWí-'gW-a- (preglottalized) -> *'gW-íh3w-a- or
          *NgWí-NgW-a- (prenasalized) -> *NgW-íh3w-a-
          Obviously, if your proposal is right that it's connected to *gWow-
          "cow", it must have been seen as a non-composite root.


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