H1 and t??

[Miguel Carrasquer Vidal]

"Glen Gordon" <glengordon01 at hotmail.com> wrote:

>JENS RASMUSSEN:
>  Now, it is also a fact that s-stems have alternants with
>  stem-final /t/: *nem-os/-es- 'worship', *nem-eto-s 'holy';
>  *lewk-ot/-es- 'daylight', and the eternally troublesome
>  *meH1-not-/*meH1-ns- 'month' and the ptc. in *-wot-/-us-.
>MIGUEL:
>  I note that at least the last two examples seem to show an
>  inverted "reading rule".  We have meH1not(s), Gen. meH1n(e)sos;
>  and Skt. nom/acc. n. sg. -vat (*-wot), vs. fem. -us.i: (*-wsiH2)
>  etc.  In other words, these look like cases of -t word-finally
>  and -s- medially.  What to make of them?
>
>"-t word-finally"?? I'm shocked that you would utter those words. How
>does this bode for **-t > *H1?

This is *-ts.

>MIGUEL:
>  As to *meH1- itself, it is interesting to note the variant *met-
>  (Pokorny 2. me:-, me-t- "mow" (*H2meH1-/*H2met-) and 3. me:-,
>  me-t- "measure", forms with *met-, like Slav. meto~ referenced
>  there).  That looks like *metV ~ *meH1/*meH1C-.
>
>Why does Pokorny write it *me-t- instead of *met- and why can't we
>consider *-t- a verbal affix or possibly two different verbs?

We could consider it an affix if the alternation had been *me-,
*met- (or *me:- ~ *me:t-).  But it's *me:- ~ *met-

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv at wxs.nl
Amsterdam