i/u as original vowels [was "centum"/"satem" exceptions]

[Stanley Friesen]

At 03:49 AM 3/11/00 +0000, Patrick C. Ryan wrote:

>[PR]

>It is the "absence of phonetic conditioning factors" that would be the
>problem for me. In the examples you cited, it seems that the augment (*e'-)
>and the difference between an CVC with closed as against a CVC- with open
>syllable would constitute (at least, potential) conditioning factors.

Which is why one chooses verbs with an initial consonant cluster, so the
augment does not significantly change the syllable structure.

[Also, I have heard there is some possibility that the augment was
optional, in which case it would not have made a very effective
conditioning for the root vowel: but I am not sure of the status of this
possibility].

><snip>

>>> [SFp]

>>>> Then there is the pair *bheru- and bhreHu, which appear to be two
>>>> distinct roots.  In both the *u appears not to be associated with an
>>>> e-grade at all (since the laryngeal comes in between in the second).

><snip>

>[SF]

>> Pokorny list both of them as one root: "bh(e)reu: bh(e)ru(:)".  It starts
>> on page 143 in my printing.  The root *bheru is under subheading A., and
>> the root bhreHu is under subheading B.

>[PR]

>Well, if I understand your point, I would have to say that the root in
>question seems to be a very obvious derivation of 2. *bher-, listed on p.
>132 --- extended by *-ew-. As for the "*u appear(ing) not to be associated
>with an e-grade", surely the o-grade in Greek phoruto's suffices for
>establishing that the initial consonant cluster is the result of reduction
>due to stress-accent rather than original.

It isn't the vowel before the 'r' that matters in this example.  It is the
absence of one before the 'u'.  (Note, even breHu has a *consonant* before
the 'u').

--------------
May the peace of God be with you.         sarima at ix.netcom.com