tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6884939767970275326.post2790808340540042682..comments2022-03-24T17:00:46.420-06:00Comments on ΣΩΦΡΟΣΥΝΗ: Latin 'pasco'Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07180168146879952801noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6884939767970275326.post-69605955098493006172009-03-19T20:22:00.000-06:002009-03-19T20:22:00.000-06:00LIV gives some bizarre explanation for crēscō that...LIV gives some bizarre explanation for crēscō that I admit I can't really fathom—explains it as a secondary creation after the vocalism of crēvī, anyway, which is itself problematic. Meh. As for quiēscō, once again the LIV says: R(e) from the aorist.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps this "R(e) from aorist" is the mark of Latin's secondary extension of the *-sḱ- morph beyond its original distribution, eliminating an old (present?) verb in simple *-s-. We have *ǵneh₃-s- in Hittite kanešš-, too, after all. (Not so much for *kʷieh₁- or *ḱerh₃- ... if you accept those etymologies.)<BR/><BR/>Of course, there are some extensions of *-sḱ- that probably don't have R(e) but rather a normal-looking R(Ø)—namely replacements of old i-reduplicated R(Ø) *-h₁se(-) desideratives.<BR/><BR/>... now, so far as I know, I'm the only person who thinks this could happen, but hear me out. I think this is the only good explanation for the form of μιμνήσκω. The root is plainly aniṭ *men-, but the form looks seṭ. Nothing about *-sḱe- suggests it could do this. There is, on the other hand, plentiful Indic evidence for a formant *-h₁se(-) (I'm scare-bracketing the final morpheme-break because it's quite possible that the "thematic vowel" itself was the 3sg desinence) added to i-reduplicated R(Ø) roots: cíkīrṣati < *kʷi-kʷr-h₁se(-ti) (ignore the LIV's accented thematic vowel, as the absence of vowels from the verb probably has more to do with total deaccentuation).<BR/><BR/>Interestingly enough, the LIV gives a Hittite reflex for *kʷikʷr-h₁s-, one in *-šk-: kuwakuwarskizzi. The phonological details there look so dubious that I doubt this is particularly revealing, however, probably having a fairly unenlightening inner-Hittite explanation.nmashtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02770682081562961383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6884939767970275326.post-36893406931174511112009-03-13T12:05:00.000-06:002009-03-13T12:05:00.000-06:00Hmmm interesting. Also, cre:sco and quie:sco show ...Hmmm interesting. <BR/><BR/>Also, cre:sco and quie:sco show long vowels. But, 'disco' does not.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07180168146879952801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6884939767970275326.post-88029324165332729732009-03-13T08:16:00.000-06:002009-03-13T08:16:00.000-06:00Nice post. :)The LIV claims that pāscō shows "R(e)...Nice post. :)<BR/><BR/>The LIV claims that <I>pāscō</I> shows "R(e) vom Aor[ist]." Here, as usual, they do not feel the need to justify this leveling.<BR/><BR/>But then perhaps this is actually normal for Latin: <I>nōscō</I> also shows R(e), *ǵneh₃sḱe-, since *-n̩h₃C- outcomes ought not to show laryngeal "flava" in Latin.<BR/><BR/>(<I>nāscōr</I> by contrast ought to be totally regular from *ǵnh₁sḱór, not to mention old-looking—but the LIV claims it is "Ersatz für das ye-Präsens" and secondary and gives references: Rix, GS Kuryłowicz p. 400; Schwyzer, KZ 56 (1928-29) p. 22.)nmashtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02770682081562961383noreply@blogger.com