Fw: *G^EN-

[Stanley Friesen]

At 09:01 AM 6/18/01 -0500, proto-language wrote:
>[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?

Some, certainly,  All I said was that it is not a *rule* that all roots
must be CVC, and thus not all CVC(V)C forms are extended roots.

>And how does one identify the legitimate derivations?

If there are attested forms derived from the CVC basis in several branches
of IE, or there are several *distinct* forms of very similar or closely
related meaning with different extensions.

Now, for the latter I would normally require extensions with different
places of articulation.  I consider that much of the variation of the -k~-g
sort is due to inter-dialect borrowing, not to originally different
(extended) roots.  That is, root final consonants that differ only in
voicing or aspiration, and are associated with virtually identical meanings
are probably best treated as being post-PIE variants of one form.

>[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.

I meant that I would reconstruct only those root forms that are multiply
attested, at least for PIE.  (The issue of an earlier stage is a separate
matter).

--------------
May the peace of God be with you.         sarima at friesen.net