Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/h₁réh₁
@Victar What is the logic behind Proto-Balto-Slavic **rēˀtas? There is no evidence for long vowel in the proposed descendants. Is Latvian ręts different from Latvian rets? I can't find it anywhere. The form *h₁réh₁-to-s which Beekes talks about in the etymology of ἐρῆμος (erêmos) is in regard to Lithuanian rēte (“net”), not the Baltic data. The 0-grade *h₁r̥h₁-ró-s for Latin rārus is also dubious. De Vaan[1] talks about etymology from Proto-Indo-European *h₂erH- (“to perish”), without proposing possible derivation from Proto-Indo-European *h₁reh₁-. He does propose, though, a 0-grade *h₁r̥h₁-ti-s for Latin ratis (“raft”), which is with short grade.
PS Proto-Slavic *rědъkъ does not require Proto-Balto-Slavic *rēˀdkas. Normal u-stem *rēˀdus suffices. In general, u-stem adjectives in Slavic were regularly extended with Proto-Slavic *-ъkъ. This mechanism, however, may not have stretched back to Balto-Slavic times. I have not checked all possible research on the topic but it may be better to stay away from Proto-Balto-Slavic *-C(u)kas in place of Proto-Balto-Slavic *-Cus as early as Balto-Slavic. Bezimenen (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Bezimenen: You first have to start with Pokorny,[2] which is probably the earliest source to group many of these words. The connection to the "net" terms have been since been rejected. Even De Vaan admits his *h₁r̥h₁-ti-s > ratis (“raft”) reconstruction is pretty weak. Schrijver[3] is the one who gives *h₁r̥h₁-ró-s, and if it's good enough for Schrijver and Beekes, it's good enough for me.
- I've added some more sources for the BSL forms, which I hope help in some way. I believe I've also seen it suggested that the -dh- in BSL is secondary, which I don't think that's necessary, but feel free to clean those up to what you think works best. Thanks for the help. --
{{victar|talk}}
19:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)- @Victar I'm asking about the grade in Lithuanian retas and Latvian rets. Neither of these exhibit a long grade in order to justify Proto-Balto-Slavic *rēˀtas. The opposite holds for *h₁r̥h₁-ró-s. I cannot tell how accurate is the etymology of Latin ratis analysed by de Vaan, but at least the development of the cluster *h₁r̥h₁- according to him yields a short grade. The contrary happens with *h₁r̥h₁-ró-s > Latin: rārus. Of course, if we treat h₁r̥h₁-C as a full fledged CRHC, then a long grade is to be expected, so I'll not argue too much about it. Definitely, though, the Baltic reconstruction needs further justification. I'll look for another potential de-lengthening of this sort. It may be reasonable, I'm not sure. The simpler solution, though, is just to reconstruct Proto-Balto-Slavic *retas and to look for reasons why the Baltic forms do not reflect -eh₁-. Bezimenen (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- PS I'm presuming that Latvian ręts which is given in the entry is the same as Latvian rets. I cannot find ręts on its own.
- @Bezimenen: Well, just because it yields a long vowel in Latin, doesn't preclude it from yielding a short vowel in BSL. That said, I'm still working on a parent entry, which could possibly be a better fit for these BSL forms, but it's still very much a work in progress. Something to keep in mind though. --
{{victar|talk}}
21:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Bezimenen: Well, just because it yields a long vowel in Latin, doesn't preclude it from yielding a short vowel in BSL. That said, I'm still working on a parent entry, which could possibly be a better fit for these BSL forms, but it's still very much a work in progress. Something to keep in mind though. --
References
edit- ^ De Vaan, Michiel (2008) “rārus”, in Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 7), Leiden, Boston: Brill, →ISBN, page 514
- ^ Pokorny, Julius (1959) “er-, erə-”, in Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch [Indo-European Etymological Dictionary] (in German), volume 1, Bern, München: Francke Verlag, pages 332-333
- ^ Schrijver, Peter C. H. (1991) The reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European laryngeals in Latin (Leiden studies in Indo-European; 2), Amsterdam, Atlanta: Rodopi, →ISBN, page 310f