*G^EN-

[proto-language]

Dear Rich and IEists:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rich Alderson" <alderson+mail at panix.com>
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 12:14 PM

> On 5 June 2001, Patrick Ryan wrote:

>> Thus, *g^enH1- would constitute an exception to the general proposition that
>> IE roots have the form CVC-. Every good "rule" needs an exception or two.

[RA]

> The general proposition that IE roots are CeC is directly related to the
> notion that IE roots involve extensions, or determinatives.  The root is
> abstracted from the stem, that portion of the word which is left after all
> inflectional and derivational morphemes are abstracted away; since the stem
> can be very messy, its analysis into a root plus a (poosibly zero) suffix
> plus one or more extensions simplifies things.

> Lehmann has a discussion of this in his 1952 monograph on phonology, derived
> from Benveniste's long exposition in _Origines de la formation des noms en
> indoeurop'een_.

> So the exception is only apparent.

[PCR]

Obviously, I have commented in general in two other postings on this question.

But, I really do not understand what you mean by "so the exception is only
apparent".

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- (which I
do not believe to be the case), 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-.

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)