Intensive Reduplication

[Patrick C. Ryan]

Dear Nath and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: Vidhyanath Rao <vidynath at math.ohio-state.edu>
Sent: Saturday, June 12, 1999 9:21 PM

> Patrick C. Ryan <proto-language at email.msn.com> wrote:

>> 1) Obviously, *Heyew  is not a canonical IE root form.
>> 2) Would you consider the original root *Hey- and -w a root extension?
>> 3) Would you consider the possibility that the root is *yew- and that *He is
>> a preverb which may or may not have been present in the earliest IE?

Nath wrote:

> There seems to be little reason to assume the existence of preverbs that
> were fused with verbs in PIE. Within Benvensite's theory of root shapes, we
> have to consider Hyew a stage II extension from an Hey. But for late PIE, I
> think that extended roots need to be considered distinct lexical items
> anyway, so the point is moot.

Pat comments:

In order to regard *Hyew as a w-extended form of *Hey, it is necessary to
demonstrate that existence of the root *Hey in the *appropriate meaning*.---
either alone or with other root extensions.

Can you do it?

Pat

PATRICK C. RYAN (501) 227-9947; FAX/DATA (501)312-9947 9115 W. 34th St.
Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803 and PROTO-RELIGION:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/indexR.html "Veit
ek, at ek hekk, vindga meipi, nftr allar nmu, geiri undapr . . . a ~eim
meipi er mangi veit hvers hann af rstum renn." (Havamal 138)