Three-Way Contrast of Secondary Articulations in PIE

[proto-language]

Dear Stanley and IEists:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stanley Friesen" <sarima at friesen.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 9:58 PM

<snip>

[PCRp]
>> First, there are no infixes in IE.

[SF]
> I am not sure what else to call the nasal present formation.  It sure isn't
> a suffix!

[PCR]
That is exactly what I would call it: a suffix --- that has methasized.

[SF]
> Let's see, from the root *bheug you get the present *bhunegti. Looks like
> an infix to me.

[PCR]
The normal formation is from *bhu-n-g-ti or *bhu-n-kti. Yes, *bhunegti can be
reconstructed on the basis Old Indian bhunákti but this is a fish swimming
against the stream.

[PCRp]
>> Second, for these 'roots' to be able to have maintained semantic integrity,
>> they must have been distinguishable in some fashion. The suffixes, etc.
>> (better root-extensions) are an attempt to continue distinctions that were
>> lost with the glides.

[SF]
> While I agree many of the roots probably originally were distinct, I do not
> think we yet have sufficient information to tell in what manner.  I
> certainly doubt there was a single cause for all of the mergers.

[PCR]
First, our agreement: there is rarely a single cause for anything.

But -- putting glides aside, how were they kept separate?

Glides is the most parsimonious explanation.

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)