Questions & explanations
1. Apply Verner's Law to explain why Gothic 'fadar' (father) has a 'd' but 'broþar' (brother) has a 'þ'.
In Gothic, 'fadar' (father) has a 'd' because the stress in Proto-Germanic was on the first syllable, so the *þ (from Grimm's Law) became voiced to *ð, which later became 'd'. In 'broþar' (brother), the stress was on the first syllable as well, but the consonant in question is the *t in the suffix. Actually, let's correct: In 'broþar', the *t in the suffix was after an unstressed syllable? Wait, the stress pattern: In Proto-Germanic, 'father' had stress on the first syllable, so the *t in the medial position was after an unstressed syllable? Actually, Verner's Law applies to consonants that are not immediately after the stressed syllable. In 'father', the *t was after the stressed syllable? Let's redo: In 'father', the stress was on the first syllable, so the *t in the medial position was after a stressed syllable? No, Verner's Law says voicing occurs when the consonant is not immediately after the stressed syllable. In 'father', the *t is the second consonant, after the stressed vowel? Actually, the rule: voicing occurs if the consonant is in an unstressed syllable. In 'father', the
2. Apply Bartholomae's Law to explain the Sanskrit word 'labdha' (obtained) from the root 'labh-' plus suffix '-ta'.
The root 'labh-' ends with a voiced aspirated 'bh'. The suffix '-ta' starts with a voiceless 't'. According to Bartholomae's Law, the voiceless 't' becomes voiced and aspirated because it is followed by a voiced aspirated sound? Actually, the law applies when a voiceless sound comes before a voiced aspirated sound. Here, the order is 'bh' (voiced aspirated) followed by 't' (voiceless). The law says the voiceless sound becomes voiced and aspirated when it is before a voiced aspirated? Wait, the law is: a voiceless obstruent becomes voiced and aspirated when it is followed by a voiced aspirated obstruent. In the cluster '-bh-t-', the 't' is after the 'bh', so the 't' is followed by nothing? Actually, the cluster is 'bh' + 't', so the 't' is after the 'bh'. The law applies to the first consonant? Let's check: In 'budh-ta', the cluster is 'dh' + 't', so 't' is after 'dh'. The result is 'ddh', so the 't' becomes 'd' (voiced) and then the whole cluster becomes 'ddh'? Actually, the law says that the voiceless consonant becomes voiced and aspirated, and the preceding voiced aspirated loses i
3. Apply Holtzmann's Law to explain the Gothic word 'twai' (two) from Proto-Germanic *twajō.
The Proto-Germanic word *twajō had *j between vowels (a and o). According to Holtzmann's Law, the *j became geminated to *jj, giving *twajjō. Then the geminate *jj later simplified to 'i' in Gothic? Actually, Gothic 'twai' has 'ai' which comes from *aj? The development: *twajjō > *twajjō > *twai? Not straightforward. A better example: the Gothic word 'niujis' (new) from *newjaz. The *w between vowels became geminated to *ww, giving *newwjaz, which then became 'niujis' with 'w'? Actually, 'niujis' has 'j', not 'w'. So let's use the word for 'eternal': Gothic 'aiweins' from *ajwīnaz. The *j between vowels became geminated to *jj, giving *ajjwīnaz, then 'aiweins' with 'i'? Actually, 'aiweins' has 'ai' and 'w', so the *j gemination might have produced 'i'? I need a correct example: Holtzmann's Law is seen in the contrast between Gothic and Old Norse. For instance, Gothic 'twai' (two) vs. Old Norse 'tveir'. The *j in *twajō became geminated in Gothic? Actually, Gothic 'twai' shows no gemination. Let's recall: Holtzmann's Law is also known as the 'Germanic gemination of *j and *w'. It is o
4. Apply Grassmann's Law to explain why Sanskrit 'bódhati' (he wakes) has a 'b' but 'bubódha' (he woke) has a 'bh'?
In Sanskrit, the root 'budh-' means 'to wake'. The present tense 'bódhati' has a 'b' at the beginning because the root has only one aspirate: the 'dh' at the end. The reduplicated perfect 'bubódha' has a 'bh' at the beginning because the reduplication syllable 'bu-' copies the root's initial consonant but without aspiration? Actually, Grassmann's Law applies: in the root 'budh-', there is an aspirated 'dh' at the end. In the perfect, the reduplicated form is 'bu-bódha'. The first 'b' should be aspirated because it comes from the root? Wait, the root initial is 'b' (unaspirated), but in the perfect, the reduplication copies the initial consonant, so it is 'b'. The root itself has 'dh' aspirated. According to Grassmann's Law, if there were two aspirates, the first would lose aspiration. But here the first is already unaspirated, so no change. Actually, the example: Sanskrit 'bódhati' has 'b' (unaspirated) and 'dh' (aspirated). In the perfect 'bubódha', the reduplication adds 'bu-', so the first syllable has 'b' (unaspirated), and the root still has 'dh'. So no two aspirates. But a bett
5. Apply Brugmann's Law: In Sanskrit, the word for 'yoke' is 'yugam' from PIE *yugóm. Does Brugmann's Law apply here?
The PIE word for 'yoke' is *yugóm. The *o is in the second syllable *-góm. This syllable is closed because it ends with the consonant m. Brugmann's Law only applies to *o in open syllables, so it does not apply here. Therefore, the *o remains short and becomes a in Sanskrit: *yugóm > yugam. If the syllable were open, like in the nominative singular of a thematic noun, the *o would lengthen. For example, PIE *deywós 'god' has *o in an open syllable (the syllable *-wós ends with s, but s is a consonant, so it's closed? Actually, *-wós ends with s, so it's closed. Need a better example: PIE *bherō 'I carry' has *ō in an open syllable, but that's already long. Brugmann's Law applies to short *o. In Sanskrit, the thematic vowel -a- in the nominative singular of masculine nouns is from PIE *-os, which is closed, so no lengthening. The law is seen in words like PIE *potis 'master' > Sanskrit *patiḥ? That has short a. Actually, a clear example is PIE *oktōu 'eight' > Sanskrit aṣṭāu, where the first syllable *ok- is closed? Wait, *ok- ends with k, so closed. The lengthening is in the second p
6. Give an example of a PIE root that violates the constraints and explain why it is impossible.
A root like *ebh- would violate the constraint because it starts with a vowel. PIE roots must begin with a consonant. Another impossible root is *peb- because it has two labial stops *p and *b in a row? Actually, *peb- has the structure *p-e-b, which is CVC, but the two consonants are both labial stops (p and b). PIE avoids roots where the initial and final consonants are the same or too similar? There is a constraint against roots with two identical stops? Actually, roots like *bheb- are possible? No, there is a constraint against roots with two voiced aspirates? The classic impossible root is *bhebh- because it has two voiced aspirates? But *bhebh- would be *bʰ-e-bʰ, which is not allowed because roots cannot have two aspirates? Actually, the constraint is that a root cannot contain two voiced aspirates. So *bhebh- is impossible. Another example: *treg- might be possible? But *treg- has a voiceless t and a voiced g, which is allowed. So a clear violation is a root starting with a vowel, like *ed-? But *ed- 'eat' is actually a valid PIE root? Wait, *ed- is a root meaning 'eat', and i
7. How does Grassmann's Law affect the form of the Greek word for 'I will place' (thēsō) versus 'I place' (títhēmi)?
The Greek verb 'títhēmi' (I place) has a reduplicated present stem. The root is 'thē-', which has an aspirated 'th'. In the present, the reduplication adds 'ti-', so the form is 'ti-thē-mi'. According to Grassmann's Law, the first aspirate 'th' in the root? Actually, the reduplicated syllable 'ti-' has an unaspirated 't', and the root 'thē' has aspirated 'th'. So there is only one aspirate in the word? Wait, 'títhēmi' has two aspirates? No, 't' is unaspirated, 'th' is aspirated. So only one aspirate. But the future 'thēsō' has an aspirated 'th' and no other aspirate. So Grassmann's Law does not apply to either. Actually, the classic example is the aorist 'éthēka' (I placed) vs. the present 'títhēmi'. In 'éthēka', the initial 'e' is not aspirated, and the 'th' is aspirated, so only one aspirate. In 'títhēmi', the 't' is unaspirated, 'th' is aspirated. So no two aspirates. A better example: the future 'thēsō' has one aspirate. So Grassmann's Law is not seen in these forms. Instead, consider the word 'thrix' (hair) vs. 'trikhos' (of hair). In 'thrix', the initial 'th' is aspirated, and
8. Give an example of Brugmann's Law from Avestan, the other major Indo-Iranian language, and explain the outcome.
In Avestan, Brugmann's Law also applies. For example, the PIE word for 'eight' was *oḱtōu. In Avestan, it becomes *aštāu, with long ā from the *ō in the second syllable? Actually, the first syllable *oḱ- becomes aš- (with short a because the syllable is closed), and the second part *-tōu becomes -tāu with long ā from *ō? Wait, the *ō was already long in PIE. Brugmann's Law applies to short *o. A better example: the PIE genitive plural ending *-oHom becomes Avestan -ąm (with nasalized long vowel) from *-ōm? Actually, the ending *-oHom has short *o in an open syllable? The reconstruction is debated. Another example: PIE *potis 'master' > Avestan *paiti-? That has short a. So perhaps the most clear example is the word for 'cow': PIE *gʷow- > Avestan gāu- with long ā? But that is from diphthong. Actually, Brugmann's Law is best seen in the thematic vowel of the nominative singular of masculine nouns: PIE *-os > Sanskrit -aḥ (short a) because the syllable is closed, but in the genitive singular *-osyo > Sanskrit -asya with short a? Hmm. Let's use the example of the word for 'yoke' as abov
9. Give an example of a regular sound correspondence in Bantu languages and what it reveals.
A common correspondence is the 'p' sound in some Bantu languages becoming 'f' in others. For instance, the word for 'to give' is 'kupa' in Swahili but 'ukufa' in Zulu? Actually, 'kupa' is not 'give' but 'throw'. Let's use a correct example: 'to hear' is 'kusikia' in Swahili, 'ukuzwa' in Zulu? Better: 'to come' is 'kuja' in Swahili, 'ukuza' in Zulu? Not regular. A known correspondence: Proto-Bantu *k becomes 'ch' in Swahili before front vowels. For example, *-kɪdʊ 'thing' becomes 'kitu' in Swahili? Actually, *-kɪdʊ gives 'kitu' (no change). Let's use a standard example: Proto-Bantu *p becomes 'h' in some languages. For instance, *-pɪa 'new' becomes 'pya' in Swahili, but 'hya' in some others? Not sure. To be accurate: In many Bantu languages, Proto-Bantu *b becomes 'v' in some positions. For example, *-bala 'to count' becomes 'kuvala' in Luba? I'll use a well-known one: Proto-Bantu *g becomes 'j' in Swahili before front vowels. For instance, *-gɛnɪ 'stranger' becomes 'geni' in Swahili? Actually, 'mgeni' with 'g'. I'll avoid risky specifics. A safe example: The word for 'ten' is 'kumi'
10. How does Sievers' Law explain the difference between Gothic 'nasjan' (to save) and 'sōkjan' (to seek)?
Both 'nasjan' and 'sōkjan' have the infinitive suffix *-jan. The root 'nas-' has a short vowel and one consonant, so it is light. The root 'sōk-' has a long vowel, so it is heavy. According to Sievers' Law, after a light syllable, the suffix is *-jan (with *j). After a heavy syllable, the suffix should be *-ijan (with *ij). But both Gothic words show '-jan', not '-ijan'. This is because Sievers' Law applies to the *j/*ij alternation in certain suffixes, but the infinitive suffix *-jan is not affected? Actually, the law applies to the *j/*ij alternation in suffixes that originally had a vowel before *j. In the infinitive, the suffix is *-jan, which has a vowel 'a' before *j? No, *-jan is *-ja-n, so the *j is preceded by a vowel? The law says that after a heavy syllable, the *j becomes *ij, so *-jan would become *-ijan. But Gothic 'sōkjan' does not show that. So the example is not correct. A better example is the agent noun suffix: Gothic 'harjis' (army) from light syllable, and 'herdeis' (shepherd) from heavy syllable. So Sievers' Law explains the alternation between '-j-' and '-ei-'
11. Apply Sievers' Law: In Gothic, the suffix for 'king' appears as -j- in some forms and -ij- in others. What determines which form appears?
The choice between -j- and -ij- depends on the weight of the syllable before the suffix. If the preceding syllable is light (short vowel followed by one consonant), you use -j-. If it is heavy (long vowel or short vowel plus two consonants), you use -ij-. For example, in the Gothic word *þiudans 'king', the stem *þiuda- has a light syllable (short i plus one consonant), so the suffix is -j- in the nominative singular. But in the genitive singular *þiudanis, the suffix becomes -ij- because the syllable is now heavy? Actually, the rule applies to the syllable immediately before the suffix. In *þiudanis, the syllable before the suffix is -da-, which is light? Wait, correct example: In Gothic, the verb *haban 'to have' has 1st person singular *haba, but 3rd person plural *haband? Sievers' Law is more about the alternation in suffixes like -ja- vs -ija- in nouns. For instance, the masculine ja-stem noun *harjis 'army' has -j- after a light syllable, while *herdeis 'shepherd' has -ij- after a heavy syllable. So the weight of the root syllable determines the suffix.
12. Compare the outcomes of Bartholomae's Law in the Sanskrit words 'buddha' (awakened) and 'labdha' (obtained).
In 'buddha', the root 'budh-' ends with 'dh' (voiced aspirated), and the suffix '-ta' starts with 't' (voiceless). The cluster 'dh-t' becomes 'ddh' (geminate voiced aspirated). So the 'dh' remains aspirated and the 't' becomes 'dh', giving a long 'ddh'. In 'labdha', the root 'labh-' ends with 'bh' (voiced aspirated), and the suffix '-ta' starts with 't'. The cluster 'bh-t' becomes 'bdh' (b + dh). Here, the 'bh' loses its aspiration to become 'b', and the 't' becomes 'dh'. So both cases show that the voiceless consonant becomes voiced aspirated, but the preceding voiced aspirated either stays aspirated (in 'buddha') or loses aspiration (in 'labdha')? Actually, in 'buddha', the 'dh' stays aspirated because it merges with the following 'dh'? In 'labdha', the 'bh' loses aspiration because it is not followed by another aspirated? The difference is that in 'buddha', the result is a geminate, so the aspiration is preserved; in 'labdha', the result is a cluster of two different consonants, so the first loses aspiration.