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

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