Re: [tied] Re: ab o:uo:
- One reason to distrust a reconstruction like *h2o:wi-o- is that the *o-grade does not occur in the base from which it is supposedly derived; and that in adjectival vrddhi (inasmuch as it dates back to PIE) the lengthened grade is normally *e:.I agree that Sieversian syllabifications are tricky, but still it would be nice to have a reconstruction that does not violate the general principles of PIE syllabification (and *-o:ujo- looks very clumsy indeed)Old Indic vi-/ve- is declined like a typical *i-stem (vim, veH, vayaH, vibHiH, etc.) but is somewhat anomalous in being monosyllabic. If we reconstruct is as *h2awi-/*h2w(e)i- (with Old Indic generalising the latter set of allomorphs), the anomaly is gone. I have seen it claimed that Vedic ve- causes positional lengthening in the preceding syllable (a trace of *h2), though I don't remember any concrete examples.The *Ho- (*h2o-?) business is controversial; there are just a few supposed compounds that might involve such an "adprep", e.g. *h2osd-o- 'branch (perch?)' (cf. *ni-sd-o- 'nest').Piotr----- Original Message -----From: Sergejus TarasovasSent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 11:21 PMSubject: [tied] Re: ab o:uo:--- In cybalist@y..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@i...> wrote:
> The vrddhi theory is difficult to accept: first, the long *o: is
> (one would expect *h2e:w- [h2a:w] + *-jo-);
Odd if we don't suppose prolongated o-grade here: *h2owi- >
*h2o:ujom. Of course such an ad hoc reconstruction (which just have
come into my mind) is not very reliable, but are there any formal
reasons to reject it?
> secondly, after an
> originally heavy syllable *-jo- should be realised phonetically as
But Sievers' law has many unexplainable exceptions and can be more or
less reliably ascribed to Germanic only while the latter doesn't
point to a heavy syllable in its *ajja-.
> But perhaps the word is an old compound with
> adverbial *Ho- 'near, by', namely *Ho-h2ewi-o-m [*Hoh2aujom] >
> *oaujom > *o:ujom.
Very interesting. Would you comment on this *Ho-pattern in PIE? What
was the typical usage, how often has it been used? Do *h1o-ti 'over'
or (rather xor) *h3e-bHi 'towards' belong here?
> (w)eon remains puzzling, perhaps reflecting an alternative form
> *Ho-h2wei-o-m > *o:wejom (the "bird" word was *h2awi-s/*h2wei-).
Do you mean our local Lithuanian chicken and their Indo-Iranian
cognates by *h2wei-? But what is _direct_ evidence for this form
(especially its *h2-)? It looks like put into existance merely by
- To explain the lengthened grade locatives of i- and u-stems, I have
suggested a development [*-oui >] *-ouu [= *-owu] > *-o:u and *-eii [=
*-eyi] > *-e:i. Maybe the same rule can be applied to the egg-word:
*h2ewi- "bird" -> o-grade them. adj. *h2owiyo-, by assimilation
*h2owuyo-, and then by the lengthening rule *h2o:wyo-.