Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Evidence for Nostratic? (was Re: Proto-Uralic?)

From:Rob Haden <magwich78@...>
Date:Tuesday, July 8, 2003, 20:43
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:14:38 -0600, Muke Tever <muke@...> wrote:

>The original genitive of *pod- "foot" though is generally reconstructed as >_monosyllabic_ (with zero-grade of the root) though, so the position of the >stress cant exactly be an issue in *pdós/*pdés (whichever it may have
been). I've seen that too. It's possible that the development was *pád(a), *padás (a) > *ped-s, *pdes. Perhaps the difference between Latin -es and Greek - os is different reflexes of Early PIE *-ás? This seems to make sense: pád-s > Latin pes (< *peds), Greek pous (< *pods) padás > Latin pedis (< *pedes), Greek podos (both with contamination with nominatives) Then again, both have masculine nom. sg. in -os (> -us in Latin).
>Note that Watkins reconstructs "name" as *H1noH3-mn=, *H1nH3-men-, as
apparently
>some Greek forms point to an original e- instead of the o- seen in <onoma>. >(Also, if 'name' ablauts... isnt 'know' a Narten non-ablauting root? I'm
not
>sure of that.) > >Also you'd have to explain how *gno:- would change the *g just for "name"
and
>remain in all other forms (English kn-, Greek gn-, Skt jñ-, Slavic zn-)...
Ah, good point. I had admittedly forgotten about that. I think there's way too many "laryngeals" all over currently reconstructed PIE. - Rob