H1 and t??
Glen Gordon
glengordon01 at hotmail.com
Tue Apr 13 20:31:37 UTC 1999
I suggested the following development of the IE declension of t/s
stems as follows with a pseudo-example *kut:
Pre-Pre-IE Pre-IE IE
Nominative *kut *kwet-se *kwets *kwets
Accusative *kut-im *kwetm *kwetm *kwetm
Dative *kwet-i: *kweti: *kwesi:(*kwesey)
Genitive *kut-isi *kwetese *kwete's *kwese's
Ablative *kut-ita *kweteta *kwete'd *kwese'd
MIGUEL:
Not if we compare how t-stems are really declined (Beekes, p. 178):
*nepo:t Skt. napa:t Lat. nepo:s
*nepotm napa:tam nepo:tem
*neptos naptur nepo:tis
Hmm, odd. That reconstruction doesn't look right. Are you sure there's
no lurking laryngeal? Maybe something like...
*nepH:t (compensatory lengthening from loss of *-s)
*nepHt-m
*nepHt-e's
The problem with this example, Miguel, is that Sanskrit <naptur> is
clearly innovative and doesn't represent the original state of
affairs. Neither does Latin.
MIGUEL:
Or for instance Skt. marut "wind" (m.):
sg. du. pl.
N marut maruta:u marutaH
A marutam ,, ,,
I maruta: marudbhya:m marudbhiH
D marute: ,, marudbhyaH
G marutaH maruto:H maruta:m
L maruti ,, marutsu
Sure, at first glance it looks contradictory but I have a question: Is
the <marut> paradigm related to forms outside Indo-Aryan? Is it a
foreign word? Is it derived from a native IE word? To make clear, if
it's not an ancient word then this example is void and null because it
could have entered the language AFTER the **t > *s changes took place.
MIGUEL:
There are really only a few forms in which we see t/s
alternation, such as the ptc.pf.act. in *-wot-/*-us-.
I don't think this is necessarily a bad statistic. There would be
strict characteristics that such a root would have to follow in order
to acquire this alternation.
--------------------------------------------
Glen Gordon
glengordon01 at hotmail.com
Kisses and Hugs
--------------------------------------------
More information about the Indo-european
mailing list