Fw: *G^EN-

[proto-language]

Dear Stanley and IEists:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stanley Friesen" <sarima at friesen.net>
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 7:32 PM

> At 11:15 AM 6/5/01 -0500, proto-language wrote:

[PCRp]

>> I have no problem with that opinion. Thus, *g^enH1- would constitute an
>> exception to the general proposition that IE roots have the form CVC-. Every

[SF]

> I actually doubt any such rule exists.  For one thing, I suspect the idea
> is due at least in part to what Rich called "over-analysis".  That is, many
> of the supposed CVC- roots that only occur with root determinatives are
> better treated as CVCVC- roots (or even CVCC or CCVC roots).  There are
> also a fair number of roots that apparently originally ended in laryngeals,
> which now masquerade as CVC- roots.

[PCR]

This is, of course, a natural "suspicion". However, having suspected the same,
no doubt, initially, IEists like Pokorny et al. were able to show a commonality
of meaning which linked various CVC(V)C roots together.

If one takes the idea of "overanalysis" to its ultimate implication, should we
assume that any CVC(V)C "root" is necessarily unrelated to a semantically
similar CVC root? Or do you believe that some CVC(V)C roots are legitimately
derived from CVC roots?

And how does one identify the legitimate derivations?

[SF]

> I find it better to just take PIE roots as they come, without trying to
> force them into some preconceived mold.

[PCR]

You assume what you attempt to argue.

It is the form of a PIE root which is the question  here.

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)