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

Re: [tied] Bader's article on *-os(y)o

Expand Messages
  • Mate Kapovic
    ... From: elmeras2000 To: Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 1:18 AM Subject: Re: [tied] Bader s article on *-os(y)o
    Message 1 of 13 , May 1 1:03 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "elmeras2000" <jer@...>
      To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 1:18 AM
      Subject: Re: [tied] Bader's article on *-os(y)o


      > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Mate Kapovic" <mkapovic@f...>
      > wrote:
      >
      > [OnCeltiberian -o]
      > >
      > > Another explanation is analogy:
      > >
      > > *sosya:s touta:s "of this tribe" : *sosyo wiri: "of this man" >
      > *sosyO wirO
      > >
      > > i. e. *-sya:s : *-syo = *-a:s : X (X = *-o)
      >
      > Hey, that is very good! Your own idea?

      No, no.... :-) Prosdocimi and Eska suggested this, I guess Prosdocimi was
      the first one...

      Mate
    • Mate Kapovic
      ... From: Miguel Carrasquer To: Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 1:32 AM Subject: Re: [tied] Bader s article on *-os(y)o
      Message 2 of 13 , May 1 1:18 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
        To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 1:32 AM
        Subject: Re: [tied] Bader's article on *-os(y)o


        > On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 23:55:07 +0200, Mate Kapovic
        > <mkapovic@...> wrote:
        >
        > >Miguel wrote:
        > > <Celtiberian -o (not an instrumental, which is -u, nor
        > ><an ablative, which is -uz) in my view represents *-os(y)o >
        > ><*-o(y)o > *-o:, and is thus fully comparable to Greek -ou (=
        > ></-o:/) < *-o(y)o < *-os(y)o.
        > >
        > >Another explanation is analogy:
        > >
        > >*sosya:s touta:s "of this tribe" : *sosyo wiri: "of this man" > *sosyO
        wirO
        > >
        > >i. e. *-sya:s : *-syo = *-a:s : X (X = *-o)
        >
        > If you can find a Celtiberian demonstrative masc. gen.
        > *sosyo, that would in itself contradicty my theory (I would
        > definitely expect *so). All the forms I've been able to
        > trace are a nom. n. <soz>, a dat. <somui>, what looks like a
        > loc. <somei>, a gen.pl. <soisum>. From *yos- we also have
        > nom. <ios>, acc. <iom>.

        <iomui> is also attested...
        I don't think that *sosyo is attested in Celtiberian, but it is attested in
        Gallic <sosio> (does that affect your theory on -i: < *-osyo?).

        > If *<sosyo wiri:> was analogically altered to *<sosyo wiro>,
        > why then didn't *<sosyo Koitunos> "of Koitu here" become
        > *<sosyo Koituno>?

        It could be explained by the connection of o- and a:-stems, like
        analogically Ab sg -az in a:-stems from o-stem -uz (I am not sure if this -z
        is attested in other declensional types like in Latin, if it is this is not
        a good example). They are also pairs in adjectives (*newos - *neweh2 etc.)
        so it could be argued that the analogy affected only the closest paradigm
        (o-stems).

        Mate
      • Miguel Carrasquer
        On Sat, 01 May 2004 10:18:58 +0200, Mate Kapovic ... Yes. ... Since Gaul. is NA n. sg. this (*), and not a genitive, it suggests that whatever the
        Message 3 of 13 , May 1 5:17 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          On Sat, 01 May 2004 10:18:58 +0200, Mate Kapovic
          <mkapovic@...> wrote:

          >> >Miguel wrote:
          >> If you can find a Celtiberian demonstrative masc. gen.
          >> *sosyo, that would in itself contradicty my theory (I would
          >> definitely expect *so). All the forms I've been able to
          >> trace are a nom. n. <soz>, a dat. <somui>, what looks like a
          >> loc. <somei>, a gen.pl. <soisum>. From *yos- we also have
          >> nom. <ios>, acc. <iom>.
          >
          ><iomui> is also attested...

          Yes.

          >I don't think that *sosyo is attested in Celtiberian, but it is attested in
          >Gallic <sosio> (does that affect your theory on -i: < *-osyo?).

          Since Gaul. <sosio> is NA n. sg. "this"(*), and not a
          genitive, it suggests that whatever the Gaulish G.sg. form
          was, it probably wasn't *sosyo.

          (*) BUSCILLA SOSIO LEGASIT IN ALIXIE MAGALU
          "Buscilla placed _this_ in Alisia for Magalos"

          >> If *<sosyo wiri:> was analogically altered to *<sosyo wiro>,
          >> why then didn't *<sosyo Koitunos> "of Koitu here" become
          >> *<sosyo Koituno>?
          >
          >It could be explained by the connection of o- and a:-stems, like
          >analogically Ab sg -az in a:-stems from o-stem -uz (I am not sure if this -z
          >is attested in other declensional types like in Latin, if it is this is not
          >a good example).

          Stifter's 'Einführung in das Kontinentalkeltische' lists
          Abl.sg. o-stem -uz (karaluz), a:-stem -az (kontebiaz), i-stem
          -iz (bilbiliz), u-stem -auez? (karauez), C-stem -ez
          (sekobirikez, barskunez).

          >They are also pairs in adjectives (*newos - *neweh2 etc.)
          >so it could be argued that the analogy affected only the closest paradigm
          >(o-stems).

          Not the closest from a phonological point of view. It's a
          small step from *<sosyo Koitunos> to *<sosyo Koituno>
          compared with the leap from *<sosyo wiri:> to *<sosyo wiro>.
          Even if the small step wasn't taken at first, but the big
          leap was, it remains a mystery how an o-stem G.sg. -o, once
          established, would have failed to influence the C-stem
          gen.sg. -os.

          We don't have that problem if the o-stem G.sg. was in fact
          -o:, with a long vowel.


          =======================
          Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
          mcv@...
        • Mate Kapović
          ... From: Miguel Carrasquer To: Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 2:17 PM Subject: Re: [tied] Bader s article on *-os(y)o
          Message 4 of 13 , May 8 5:44 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <
            mcv@...>
            To: <
            cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 2:17 PM
            Subject: Re: [tied] Bader's article on *-os(y)o

            <Since Gaul. <sosio> is NA n. sg. "this"(*), and not a
            <genitive, it suggests that whatever the Gaulish G.sg. form
            <was, it probably wasn't *sosyo.

            (*) BUSCILLA SOSIO LEGASIT IN ALIXIE MAGALU
            "Buscilla placed _this_ in Alisia for Magalos"

            Then how do you explain this sosio which means "this" but doesn't have
            anything to do with *sosyo? It would be really strange if it didn't. No
            matter that the meaning is accusative, I would still bet it is an old
            genitive... In some languages (like Slavic or Finnic), genitive instead of
            accusative is not so strange in some contexts. I wonder if something like
            that could be shown for Celtic (Gaulish)?


            <Not the closest from a phonological point of view.  It's a
            <small step from *<sosyo Koitunos> to *<sosyo Koituno>
            <compared with the leap from *<sosyo wiri:> to *<sosyo wiro>.
            <Even if the small step wasn't taken at first, but the big
            <leap was, it remains a mystery how an o-stem G.sg. -o, once
            <established, would have failed to influence the C-stem
            <gen.sg. -os.

            Well it would not be that strange.... Stranger things have happened in
            languages. Also, one could argue that *sosyo and <Koitunos> are rather alike
            [-o(s)] and that only the proposed*-i: and -o/-os are so unlike that *-i:
            would be compelled to change. But it has to be said that if this scenario
            works, we have no idea what could have been there in the beginning instead
            of later analogical -o.

            <We don't have that problem if the o-stem G.sg. was in fact
            <-o:, with a long vowel.

            The problem I have with your -o < -osyo is thatnot only does *o: yield -u-
            in Celtiberian in the -oC position (D. sg -ui, Ab. -uz, g. pl. -um, a.
            pl. -us ?) but also that I. sg *-oh1 gives -u in Celtiberian. You would have
            to claim a different long *o: or different relative chronology to account
            for that.

            Mate

          • Miguel Carrasquer
            On Sat, 08 May 2004 14:44:47 +0200, Mate Kapovic ... The form appears to be a compound of so- and siod (for *tyod). The corresponding acc.sg. masc. is sosin
            Message 5 of 13 , May 8 3:45 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              On Sat, 08 May 2004 14:44:47 +0200, Mate Kapovic'
              <mkapovic@...> wrote:

              >From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
              >
              ><Since Gaul. <sosio> is NA n. sg. "this"(*), and not a
              ><genitive, it suggests that whatever the Gaulish G.sg. form
              ><was, it probably wasn't *sosyo.
              >
              >(*) BUSCILLA SOSIO LEGASIT IN ALIXIE MAGALU
              >"Buscilla placed _this_ in Alisia for Magalos"
              >
              >Then how do you explain this sosio which means "this" but doesn't have
              >anything to do with *sosyo?

              The form appears to be a compound of so- and siod (for
              *tyod). The corresponding acc.sg. masc. is sosin (*so-sim
              or *so-siom?). Old Irish has neuter forms based on *sod
              (-so) and *siod (-se), besides the normal article *sindo-
              (but n.sg. *som > sa(N)). I don't quite know what to make
              of these forms, but the common factors are: (1)
              generalization of *s- from the old nom. masc. and fem. at
              the expense of *t- from the neuter and the oblique (cf. also
              Celtiberian n. soz < *sod for *tod); (2) important influence
              from the pronoun *syo, *tyom (f. syah2, n. tyod) [e.g. Vedic
              syá, tyám, tyásya, etc.].

              >It would be really strange if it didn't. No
              >matter that the meaning is accusative, I would still bet it is an old
              >genitive... In some languages (like Slavic or Finnic), genitive instead of
              >accusative is not so strange in some contexts. I wonder if something like
              >that could be shown for Celtic (Gaulish)?

              Not to my knowledge.

              ><We don't have that problem if the o-stem G.sg. was in fact
              ><-o:, with a long vowel.
              >
              >The problem I have with your -o < -osyo is thatnot only does *o: yield -u-
              >in Celtiberian in the -oC position (D. sg -ui, Ab. -uz, g. pl. -um, a.
              >pl. -us ?) but also that I. sg *-oh1 gives -u in Celtiberian. You would have
              >to claim a different long *o: or different relative chronology to account
              >for that.

              Of course: the chronology is vastly different. The ins.sg.
              in *-oh1 > -o: had a long vowel centuries, if not millennia,
              before *-os(y)o was reduced to *-oo in Celtiberian. The
              Proto-Celtic was still *-osyo (as shown by old Lepontic
              -oiso), while the others were Proto-Celtic *-o:i, *-o:d,
              *-o:m, *-o:(n)s (I would not reconstruct a long vowel
              already for PIE, at least not in the ablative, since PIE
              *-õ:d would have given Lith. -uõ, instead of attested -õ <
              *-a: < *-aa < *-ood).

              Proto-Celtic *o: gave Celtiberian /u/ (at least in a final
              syllable). Only then was *-os(y)o reduced to *-oo > -o:.
              There is no more of a problem with that as there is with
              Greek D. -O:i, Gpl. -O:n (written with omega) vs. Gsg. -o:
              (written -ou). The only difference is that loss of
              intervocalic -s- is regular in Greek, while it isn't in
              Celtiberian. On the other hand, we have the same thing in
              Latin, where *esyo > eius, *kWosyo > cuius, *is-tosyo >
              isti:us, despite the fact that -s- normally gives -r- in
              Latin. This can be explained in many ways: special
              development of /sy/ as opposed to plain /s/, special
              development of pronouns as opposed to other words (cf.
              Germanic þ > ð in pronouns, þ- elsewhere, or Slavic Gen.
              *-oo(d) > -ogo in pronouns, but *-oo(d) > -a: > -a in
              nouns), etc.


              =======================
              Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
              mcv@...
            • Mate Kapovic
              ... From: Miguel Carrasquer To: Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 7:37 PM Subject: Re: [tied] Bader s article on *-os(y)o
              Message 6 of 13 , Jun 8, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
                To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 7:37 PM
                Subject: Re: [tied] Bader's article on *-os(y)o


                >>Hmm. Concerning Greek pous 'foot,' the orthography indicates that
                >>this was a secondarily lengthened /o/ (that is, after original */o:/
                >>became /O:/). So perhaps the Greek form was earlier pods or pots?

                >poús is the Attic form, elsewhere we have pó:s. I'm not
                >sure, but it looks like *po:ds could be simplified early to
                >*po:s, which then stays, or (in Attic) remained as *po:ds,
                >which is then affected by Osthoff's law (-V:CC > -VCC, so
                >*po:ds > *pods, and then *pods > po:2s [written <pous>] with
                >compensatory lengthening).

                I have come myself to a similar conclusion but some things are not so clear
                to me. Isn't Osthoff's Law traditionally only posited for -V:RC, not for
                every -V:CC? Are there any more cases of -V:CC > -VCC and -VCC > -V:C (with
                the first C being /d/ or something similar and -V: being <ou> or <ei>)?

                Mate
              • Miguel Carrasquer
                On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 22:44:59 +0200, Mate Kapovic ... Yes. ... The only slightly similar case I can think of right now is oûs (Doric ô:s), o:tós ear (but
                Message 7 of 13 , Jun 8, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 22:44:59 +0200, Mate Kapovic
                  <mkapovic@...> wrote:

                  >
                  >----- Original Message -----
                  >From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
                  >To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
                  >Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 7:37 PM
                  >Subject: Re: [tied] Bader's article on *-os(y)o
                  >
                  >
                  >>>Hmm. Concerning Greek pous 'foot,' the orthography indicates that
                  >>>this was a secondarily lengthened /o/ (that is, after original */o:/
                  >>>became /O:/). So perhaps the Greek form was earlier pods or pots?
                  >
                  >>poús is the Attic form, elsewhere we have pó:s. I'm not
                  >>sure, but it looks like *po:ds could be simplified early to
                  >>*po:s, which then stays, or (in Attic) remained as *po:ds,
                  >>which is then affected by Osthoff's law (-V:CC > -VCC, so
                  >>*po:ds > *pods, and then *pods > po:2s [written <pous>] with
                  >>compensatory lengthening).
                  >
                  >I have come myself to a similar conclusion but some things are not so clear
                  >to me. Isn't Osthoff's Law traditionally only posited for -V:RC, not for
                  >every -V:CC?

                  Yes.

                  >Are there any more cases of -V:CC > -VCC and -VCC > -V:C (with
                  >the first C being /d/ or something similar and -V: being <ou> or <ei>)?

                  The only slightly similar case I can think of right now is
                  oûs (Doric ô:s), o:tós "ear" (but the -u- in the nom. is
                  etymological: *h2ó:us-s).

                  =======================
                  Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
                  mcv@...
                • P&G
                  ... Dental stems normally form the nominative by dropping the dental without compensatory lengthening, except monosyllables (e.g. pous) (Abbot & Mansfield)
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jun 9, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    >Are there any more cases of -V:CC > -VCC and -VCC > -V:C (with
                    >the first C being /d/ or something similar and -V: being <ou> or <ei>)?

                    "Dental stems normally form the nominative by dropping the dental without
                    compensatory lengthening, except monosyllables (e.g. pous)" (Abbot &
                    Mansfield)
                    Are there any other monosyllables?

                    Peter
                  • elmeras2000
                    ... that ... */o:/ ... pots? ... so clear ... not for ... V:C (with ... )? I would guess that in Greek the vowel timbre of the old long open o- vowel of
                    Message 9 of 13 , Jun 9, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Mate Kapovic" <mkapovic@f...>
                      wrote:
                      >
                      > ----- Original Message -----
                      > From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@w...>
                      > To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
                      > Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 7:37 PM
                      > Subject: Re: [tied] Bader's article on *-os(y)o
                      >
                      >
                      > >>Hmm. Concerning Greek pous 'foot,' the orthography indicates
                      that
                      > >>this was a secondarily lengthened /o/ (that is, after original
                      */o:/
                      > >>became /O:/). So perhaps the Greek form was earlier pods or
                      pots?
                      >
                      > >poús is the Attic form, elsewhere we have pó:s. I'm not
                      > >sure, but it looks like *po:ds could be simplified early to
                      > >*po:s, which then stays, or (in Attic) remained as *po:ds,
                      > >which is then affected by Osthoff's law (-V:CC > -VCC, so
                      > >*po:ds > *pods, and then *pods > po:2s [written <pous>] with
                      > >compensatory lengthening).
                      >
                      > I have come myself to a similar conclusion but some things are not
                      so clear
                      > to me. Isn't Osthoff's Law traditionally only posited for -V:RC,
                      not for
                      > every -V:CC? Are there any more cases of -V:CC > -VCC and -VCC > -
                      V:C (with
                      > the first C being /d/ or something similar and -V: being <ou> or
                      <ei>)?

                      I would guess that in Greek the vowel timbre of the old long open o-
                      vowel of 'foot' has taken over the *timbre* (but not the quantity)
                      of the closed o-vowel of the case forms with short o. This may even
                      be Common Greek, for also the Doric omega may reflect an old closed
                      long o-vowel.

                      Jens
                    • Miguel Carrasquer
                      On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 08:13:46 +0100, P&G ... A quick glance in Weir Smyth at Perseus reveals only: thês thêt-os khrôs khrôt-os (also chrô-os) phôs
                      Message 10 of 13 , Jun 9, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 08:13:46 +0100, P&G
                        <petegray@...> wrote:

                        >>Are there any more cases of -V:CC > -VCC and -VCC > -V:C (with
                        >>the first C being /d/ or something similar and -V: being <ou> or <ei>)?
                        >
                        >"Dental stems normally form the nominative by dropping the dental without
                        >compensatory lengthening, except monosyllables (e.g. pous)" (Abbot &
                        >Mansfield)
                        >Are there any other monosyllables?

                        A quick glance in Weir Smyth at Perseus reveals only:

                        thês thêt-os
                        khrôs khrôt-os (also chrô-os)
                        phôs phôt-os (from phaot-, so not a monosyllable)
                        kêr (root ends in *-d, but oblique not retained in Greek)
                        ous/ôs ôt-os (from *ousn.t-, so not a monosyllable)

                        Nothing really comparable to pous/po:s.

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