Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tied] IE genitive

Expand Messages
  • Sergejus Tarasovas
    ... I ... of ... I ve been assuming the same up to now. That s what students are taught here in Lithuania, that s what is stated in all the treatments of
    Message 1 of 78 , May 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Jens Elmegård Rasmussen <jer@c...>

      > Could you get this important message across to other scholars, for
      > have not been able to do so? I was treated as a complete idiot in a
      > Festschrift article only a few years ago because I had assumed
      > precisely that. Not that I had presented the rule as an invention
      > mine, I was just applying what I assumed to be common knowledge on
      > problems I came by.

      I've been assuming the same up to now. That's what students are
      taught here in Lithuania, that's what is stated in all the treatments
      of Lithuanian historical grammar I've happened to read. I'd like to
      come across a paper where the counter-arguments are presented.
      Probably such stuff is among prohibited imports in Lithuania.

      > I don't know for what reason, but there seems to
      > be a strong opinion against the obvious in this matter.

      Could you reveal their identities? On occasion, I'll try to stir up
      some Lithuanian linguists against them.

      > > As for the polysyllabic part (+acute (on /au/, /ei/ or /ai/) ->
      > > [+circumflex]/_# in both mono- and polysyllables), the examples
      > > rather trivial: <sakau~> 'I say' < *saká:u, <sakei~> 'you (2sg.)
      > said' <
      > > *sakéi, <sakai~> 'you (2sg.) say' < *saká:i).
      > Yeah, I had a feeling that would be the basis of it. It is not
      > evidence I would trust too firmly. For in what sense can one really
      > say that sequences like *-a:- + *-o: and *-a:- + *-ai were ever
      > acute?

      Probably because we find broken tone in Z^emaitian dialects (<sakâu>
      < *sakáu, <darâ.> < *darái, <darê.> < *daréi) -- analogically
      restored after reflexives (*sukáusi, *sukáisi, *vedéisi, cf. probably
      analogical circumflexes in reflexives in Auks^taitian -- including
      Standard Lithuanian -- <sukau~si>, <sukai~si>, <vedei~si>) or just
      retained; also because the endings in question attract stress by
      Saussure's law (<sa~ko> ~ <sakau~>). By the way, dou you believe in
      <nes^ù> < nes^úo < *nes^ó:? I'm not sure of anything anymore.

      But the verbal endings is not the only basis for that. Consider
      examples like geriau~(s) 'better' (< geriáu(s)) ~ geriáusias 'the
      best'. Or let's play an intellectual game: provide me with an example
      of acuted -áu, -éi, or -ái in Standard Lithuanian (recent truncations
      like táu < ta~vi(e) or tám < ta~mui don't count).

      > > [...] The rule [of circ. in monosyll., JER]
      > > works both in open and closed syllables.
      > I completely agree.

      Endzeli:ns, who was the first to formulate the rules under question
      in their complete form (in 1922) would have been happy to know that.

    • Miguel Carrasquer
      On Fri, 09 May 2003 21:04:54 +0200 (MET DST), Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen ... This is where we differ. I don t think *o is the reduction product of anything:
      Message 78 of 78 , May 9, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        On Fri, 09 May 2003 21:04:54 +0200 (MET DST), Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
        <jer@...> wrote:

        >> Finally there was a second zero grade
        >> rule that further reduced *e, but not *o, in posttonic position.
        >Almost so: The vowel from which the accent was removed by the initial
        >accent rule was itself lost. Long posttonic vowels were retained.
        >Deaccented /e/ (in reduplicated wordforms) was not lengthened, and so was
        >lost. The reduction product of unaccented *e, which was (the prestage of)
        >*o, was itself lost if not saved by lengthening. Some new unaccented o's
        >were created by analogy (acc.sg.).

        This is where we differ. I don't think *o is the reduction product of
        anything: it's an original long vowel. The only case where we have *o
        from *& is the thematic vowel (before a voiced segment), and in _some_
        nominative singulars, where *-&C-z was lengthened to *-&:Cz >
        *-o:C(s). The *-o- in the acc.sg. is not analogical.

        >> I think the thematic vowel survived the first zero grade simply by the
        >> fact that it was initially always stressed. For nouns such as
        >> *wl.kWós or verbs such as *tudéti this simply follows from the
        >> attested facts. For verbs such as *bhéreti or nouns (adjectives) such
        >> as *néwos this requires original long grade (vr.ddhi) of the root
        >> (**bha:r-á-t(i) > *bharát(i) > *bhéret(i); **na:w-á-z > **nawá:z >
        >> *néwos), which is in itself not a problem (Sanskrit .

        [I meant to say: "(In Sanskrit vrddhi with thematic vowel was still a
        living process)"]

        >Other saved vowels do not alternate like the thematic vowel, so this
        >doesn't help.

        The thematic vowel rule came *after* this initial "reduction" stage.

        >> In the case of *wl.kWós or *tudéti we also have no problem with the
        >> "second" zero-grade rule, but such a problem does arise with e.g.
        >> post-initial-accent *bhéreti, which should have given +bhérti.
        >> My solution lies in the re-evaluation of the vowel qualities/
        >> quantities in combination with a slightly different working of the
        >> zero-grade rules (where zero-grade rule I becomes a reduction-rule,
        >> creating schwa's, and the real zero-grade (schwa > 0) is the work of
        >> zero-grade rule II).
        >> Imagine a pre-PIE vowel system consisting of:
        >> /a/ /i/ /u/
        >> /a:/ /i:/ /u:/
        >> both stressed and unstressed.
        >> The vowel reduction rule reshaped this to:
        >> stressed svarita unstressed
        >> a > &' o: &
        >> i > (y)&' (y)e: (y)&
        >> u > (w)&' (w)o: (w)&
        >> a: > ó: a
        >> i: > (y)é: i > (y)&
        >> u: > (w)ó: u > (w)&
        >Why would stressed vowels be reduced?

        It happened in e.g. Tocharian.

        >It seems to pull the carpet from
        >under the initial insight that Schwundablaut is accent-governed.

        Read on...

        >> Disregarding the labializing and palatalizing effects of former *i(:)
        >> and *u(:), this amounts to a system where we have:
        >> stressed unstressed
        >> &' &
        >> a
        >> ó: o(:)
        >> é: e(:)
        >> The initial accent rule turns all cases of /a/ (from unstressed /a:/)
        >> into stressed /á/, and reduces any following stressed /&'/ (from
        >> stressed /á/, /í/, /ú/) to unstressed /&/.
        >> We now have:
        >> stressed unstressed
        >> &' &
        >> á
        >> é: e(:)
        >> ó: o(:)
        >> Stressed /&'/ and /á/ merge as /é/, and the zero grade rule then turns
        >> all unstressed /&/'s into zero, giving:
        >> stressed unstressed
        >> é
        >> é: e
        >> ó o
        >> This accounts for most noun patterns:
        >> root: **sám-z, G. **sam-ás -> *séms, *smés
        >> root static: **pá:d-z, G. **pa:d-ás -> *pó:ds, *péds
        >> PD: **h2ák-ma:n-z, G. **h2ak-mán-a:s -> *h2ák^mo:n, *&2k^ménos
        >> HD: *pa-h2tár-z, G. *pa-h2tar-ás -> *p&2té:r, *p&2trés
        >> PD static: **wá:d-an, G. *wa:d-án-a:s -> *wódr, *wédnos
        >> collective: **wad-á:n-h2, G. *wad-a:n-ás -> *udó:r, *udéns
        >> For instance, the G. **pa:d-ás becomes **pad&'s (reduction rule), then
        >> **pád&s (initial accent rule) then *péds (zero-grade rule).
        >> Likewise **wa:d-án-a:s > **wad&'nos > **wád&nos > *wédnos, or
        >> **wad-a:n-ás > **w&dan&'s > **w&dán&s > *udéns.
        >This looks like all the rules I made twenty-five years ago, with only
        >slight deviations. You just use a different notation for not-yet-surfaced
        >full vowels.

        Of course most of it is based on your rules. I can't help it if you
        were mainly correct. But my amendments do amount to more than simply
        a different notation. I have completely different views on the origin
        of *o [as outlined above], and the version of the "zero-grade rule"
        (reduction rule) I present here has the advantage of (a) being very
        different from the second [now the *real*] zero-grade rule (which
        makes the existence of the two rules as separate entities more
        understandable); (b) helping to understand the working of the initial
        accent rule [there is no need anymore to justify why the accent was
        not drawn back by an /i/ or a /u/ or one of the syllabic resonants, as
        there were't any yet]; and (c) it makes the possibilities for survival
        of the thematic vowel a lot greater: now all they had to do to escape
        deletion was to not be schwas, which is exactly what the thematic
        vowel rule [which we need in any case] can easily be made to do (& > a
        > e before voiceless, & > a: > o before voiced).

        >> To explain the thematic forms, all we need is to suppose that the
        >> thematic vowel /&/ was affected not only by a following voiced segment
        >> (giving /&:/ > /o/), but also by a following voiceless segment (giving
        >> strengthened **/a/ > /e/, the same sound that resulted from unstressed
        >> **/a:/). In other words, the "thematic vowel rule" is a rule that
        >> turns morpheme-final schwa's into "clear" vowels.
        >It processes stem-final (not word-final) vowels. There are no other
        >stem-final vowels than the thematic vowels.

        Stem-final is fine. I was just taking a broader view based on the
        o-stem vocative *-e. Some verbal endings [*-h2a, *-th2a, *-e; *-mé,
        *-té] also have word final vowels (which are not dropped).

        >> We then have:
        >> reduct. them-vow. init-acc. zero
        >> **tawd-á-t t&wd&'t t&wdát t&wdét tudét
        >> **tawd-a-mán t&wd&m&'n t&wda:m&'n t&wdóm&n tudómen (!)
        >The tudati type is not that old. This is otiose.

        The avidat type then (thematic root aorist). Same thing, formally.

        >> **bha:r-á-t bhar&'t bharát bhéret bhéret
        >> **bha:r-a-mán bhar&m&'n bhara:m&'n bhérom&n bhéromen (!)
        >> Note that the ending -men (-mes) is also unaffected by zero-grade, but
        >> that might be analogical after normal stressed -mén (-més).
        >It's rather a matter of what that ending really contained. The same
        >surprise is seen in the other 1./2. du./pl. endings, act. and mid.

        In any case (except perhaps for the verbal endings I mentioned above)
        it's a different story than the story of the thematic vowel.

        Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.