*G^EN-

[proto-language]

Dear Peter and IEists:

----- Original Message -----
From: "petegray" <petegray at btinternet.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 2:48 PM

> Pat said:

>> Let me clarify what I was saying. Even if we could trace all attested IE
>> forms back to *g^enH1-, and no attested form could be derived from **g^en-
>> ...I would still maintain that the non-attestation of **g^en- is a
>> historical accident, and that **g^en- still must be reconstructed for some
>> earlier date in order to provide the basis for *g^enH1-.

> I reply:

> This is based entirely on a theoretical assumption.  Nothing wrong with
> that, but not everyone is in agreement on that theory.  Furthermore, it also
> assumes that *g'en is CVC.   In PIE terms, I would see it as CV, and the
> attested root *g'enH / g'nH as the true CVC, parallel to so many PIE roots
> such as *leikw / likw, *derk / drk ....etc

[PCR]
Well, you obviously have a liking for syllablic nasals.

I guess you will think I am copping a plea by appealing to Nostratic (and PAA)
again. In cognates with *CVn- roots, Nostratic (and PAA) show no signs of
syllabic nasals. This suggests strongly that syllabic nasals are an IE
development.

Now, it appears to me that you wish to reconstruct a *g^N-, which you would
consider an example of CV.

Why not explain to me why you believe it is preferable to regard *g^NH- as a
CVH rather than simply a zero-grade of *g^en + H-?

Obviously, I reject the parallel you suggest. For me, *leikw- is a CVC (*ley-)
plus root-extension *-kw.

Pat

PATRICK C. RYAN | PROTO-LANGUAGE at email.msn.com (501) 227-9947 * 9115 W. 34th
St. Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES: PROTO-LANGUAGE:
http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/ and PROTO-RELIGION:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/indexR.html "Veit ec
at ec hecc, vindgá meiði a netr allar nío, geiri vndaþr . . . a þeim
meiþi, er mangi veit, hvers hann af rótom renn." (Hávamál 138)