Intensive Reduplication

[Patrick C. Ryan]

Dear Nath and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: Vidhyanath Rao <vidynath at math.ohio-state.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 1999 9:16 AM

[ moderator snip ]

> Once we reject Benveniste's theory, we need to add a 4) to your list above,
> namely that Hyew was the original simple root. That is perfectly fine with
> me too.

I will commit the ultimate heresy by admitting that I think Benveniste's
theory has validity not only for IE but for many languages outside of this
language family.

The only exceptions I see are that in some early languages, very
occasionally we run into a simple CV form, such as Sumerian ta, arm' but
even IE has *se, *so, *to, and *me to name a few

I do think it remarkable that many simple IE CCVC "roots" seem to have a
variously specified laryngeal as an initial. Do you not think that somewhat
odd if we do not analyze these initials as *H{?}e-, i.e. as pre-verbs or
some otherwise defined element of a compound?

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)