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

Re: [tied] IE vowels: The sequel.

Expand Messages
  • elmeras2000
    ... tainted ... Yeah, right ... I asked you about your nonsense, and you gloatingly insisted on it, not knowing how wrong it was. I was even lectured about the
    Message 1 of 18 , Jun 30, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@g... wrote:
      > Jens:
      > > I set a trap for you.
      >
      > Not really, but whatever makes you happy. I don't pay as much heed
      > to your information as I once did, when first I found it to be
      tainted
      > by your biases. Look below.

      Yeah, right ... I asked you about your nonsense, and you gloatingly
      insisted on it, not knowing how wrong it was. I was even lectured
      about the importance of majority rule. Of course we all know how
      wrong that is, and how little we respect it, seeing that we
      basically go by isolated-but-supported archaisms that have survived
      against all odds. That is what we take seriously by Meillet's old
      principle.

      > > I made it appear that you were right about /i/ being restricted
      to
      > > pretonic position wherever regular.
      >
      > It's irrelevant. The overall pattern of IE has led me to the
      conclusions
      > I state, not your 'wise counsel'.

      But the "overall pattern" you invoked and lectured us about, telling
      us how immensely important it was, does not exist. You just believed
      so and made it up.

      > The fact remains firm that the overall accent pattern in the
      latest stage
      > of IE has been significantly modified to the point that the far
      less
      > common _athematic_ stems are the ones that show any trace of the
      original
      > accent system.


      > Any fool can see that the accent of thematic stems has
      > been regularized to the initial syllable and it is on this that I
      base my
      > conclusions.

      Well, I may just not be a fool after all then. The accent of
      thematic verbal stems is columnal. Sure that is in a sense regular,
      but that is no valid reason to assume that it was earlier mobile.
      None of the processes I can formulate to yield the accent pattern of
      thematic stems and verify by their clarifying effect on independent
      material is analogical. The columnal accent can be predicted by a
      phonetic rule everywhere.

      > As a result of this independent observation, I will inevitably end
      up
      > with conclusions about pre-IE accentuation that will defy what we
      come
      > to see in IE itself, just as there will be facts about Old English
      that
      > don't conform nicely to what we see in Modern English.

      I do not think there is any material in Modern English that excludes
      anything known to be correct for Old English. In like fashion,
      observations made for attested stages of IE should not be allowed to
      exclude postulates made for PIE or any supposed prestage of it. You
      violate that principle all the time.

      >Do I feel ashamed
      > that it violates statistics in this case? No, because only you are
      the
      > one that takes things out of context and generalizes to the point
      of
      > absurdity.

      No, I asked you explicitly if you meant it that way. You did and
      lectured me in your characteristic high and mighty way about it.
      Then I consulted the facts and got a different reply. Nice to know
      where to go.

      > Statistics is one of many tools and facts to consider and in
      regards to
      > IE accentuation, statistics will not tell us that the acrostatic
      paradigm
      > is quite recent. It will instead betray us unless we properly
      weigh ALL
      > evidence in this matter.

      But you give priority to invented evidence which is indeed absent.
      You just made it up and bragged about it.

      > > Now, it so happens that i-stems are *never* accented after
      the /i/.
      >
      > Oh my. I feel violated by your irrelevant trickery. How might I
      pick
      > myself up and dust myself off?

      You can't.

      > Why, I will now fashion a noose around
      > my neck and hang my desperate soul from a sturdy oak tree in order
      to
      > remove myself from your unbearable disdain >:P
      >
      > In this case, I really don't care one way or another what you've
      said,
      > because I will still arrive at the same conclusions based on what
      I've
      > found beforehand without any of your input.

      Indeed, without any input.

      > > Your "*xargi-" is in reality *H2r.g^-í- in both Greek argí-pous
      > > and Vedic r.jí-s'van-.
      >
      > Minor detail in the first syllable. The accent here is still on
      the *i,
      > the main point afterall, because of the adjectival accent pattern.
      It
      > is unoriginal, derived from the genitival accent.

      It is not a trivial point that the only evidence you quote to sell a
      wrong rule is evidence against it. You said the accent in i-stems
      was always, or with a strong statistic preponderance, after the -i-.
      It just never is. You also lectured readers of the list about the
      importance of these precious details which you just never looked
      into and which are not true.

      > > The only real material of any size of -i- in alternation with -e-
      /-o-
      > > appears *after* the accent or in compounds *with* the accent.
      >
      > Yes. And? As I mentioned above, to see the accent without change
      > (as if we really need to in this case to put two and two
      together), one
      > would have to think up a compound with a first element that is
      thematic
      > and a second element that is athematic. In this way, we might
      conceivably
      > get accent on the second stem in order to see a pretonic *i-stem,
      > assuming that such rare roots would not be prone to analogical
      change
      > or would truly be considered an athematic compound in all in order
      to
      > avoid acrostatic regularization. Good luck.

      When thematic stems are replaced by i-stems in the first part of
      compounds they are accented on the -i-. The exclusive pattern you
      insisted so strongly upon does not occur. Or is your "rule" okay,
      only *despite* the evidence? Are you fighting so hard to avoid ad-
      hoc rules that you make them contra-hoc??

      > As I said above, because it is in this case the _rarer_ athematic
      stems
      > that preserve original accent at all, we can either wait for the
      perfect
      > evidence to come our way to spoonfeed us the result... or we can
      use our
      > noggin' and piece it together on our own.

      Not this way we can't.

      > Yes, I know, you're afraid
      > of extrapolation as a logical tool and mistake it, as do most
      people,
      > with fertile imagination.

      I see a most sterile and counterproductive stubbornness in this
      insistence on what is wrong even as formulated, no mistake about
      that.

      > The two are really not the same since
      > extrapolation is still based on facts while imagination is just
      ignorant
      > of them.

      This may be entered as a plea of guilty. You are extrapolating
      against the facts you quote. That's beyond rescue.

      > > I have looked high and low, but I have not found Caland's
      adjective-
      > > suffix representative -i- *before* the accent. It just does not
      seem
      > > to exist.
      >
      > For the umpteenth time, it's Acrostatic Regularization and some
      other
      > accentuation changes in Late IE that hinder your discovery. You may
      > never find such a thing, to be brutally honest, but that doesn't
      mean
      > what I'm saying is baseless or untrue. There are other
      considerations
      > other than statistics... yes it's true!

      What power do you have to just declare things "true" if they are
      blatantly at variance with what you cite in their favour? Up to this
      point it had been my understanding that you were just not informed
      about the facts and therefore were morally excused when you said so
      many silly things. But not we are told flat out by yourself that you
      do not even care about the evidence or by the existence of a basis
      for your assumptions - you just make them anyway!

      > > That was perhaps not nice of me, and perhaps I should feel
      terrible
      > > about it. I'm not even shamed to admit it feels just fine.
      >
      > Hey, if you want to put on the jester outfit, that's your fetish
      > but it honestly has nothing to do with anything. I'm glad you got
      > whatever neurosis off your chest. If there is a 'trap' here, it is
      the
      > one I set for you that you fall into every single time. This trap
      is
      > called constructive reasoning. What you've shown by this exercise
      is
      > that, being unable to demonstrate your points of view with any
      modicum of
      > logic, you now resort to trickery in order to 'attack' me (or
      whatever
      > it was supposed to be) out of obvious desperation. If you are
      desperate,
      > it suggests that you may have seen some worthy points come out of
      my
      > posts and rather than accept any of them outright, you will first
      repress
      > them out of fear of being wrong, hell, even throw a few
      condascending
      > ditties my way from time to time while you slowly digest the
      inevitables.


      My very grave concern has been the prospect that less experienced
      members of this list might get the impression that serious and
      honest painstaking analytical work that states reasons and has a
      basis in empirical evidence is no good in comparison with any wild
      guess that comes to mind to an oracle who just says he knows it all.
      It may be hoped that some have now seen what that really is.

      Jens
    • tgpedersen
      ... accent), ... I think it makes it easier. Step one: the suffix is accented, because it is an accented suffix (-ó-) (nice explanation, huh?). Step two:
      Message 2 of 18 , Jul 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@g... wrote:
        > Torsten:
        > > Isn't it easier to do it in two steps: at first thematic stems
        > > accented the thematic vowel throughout the paradigm (thereby
        > > destroying all information in the paradigm of any shifting
        accent),
        > > then the accent was moved, uniformly accross the paradigm, since
        > > there was no way to reconstruct the original irregularity?
        >
        > You think two steps are easier than one, eh? Hmm.
        >
        >
        I think it makes it easier.
        Step one: the suffix is accented, because it is an accented suffix
        (-ó-) (nice explanation, huh?).
        Step two: stress is moved to some other syllable.

        I think the thematic inflection is a generalisation of the gen.pl.
        used in a negative construction: né <´>-om > ne <>-óm "no <>'s". In
        that phrase the noun gets an indefinite sense "some of <>" (and from
        there -óm become used to form collectives) and is then reanalysed as
        ne <>ó-m, ie. as if the stem ended in a stressed -ó-. This new stem
        now has acquired an indefinite sense in opposition to the the
        definitenes of the athematic one (remember catus/Cato-n-). Later the
        gen.pl. suffix becomes -o-om, to match the -om suffix of the
        athematics.

        In your single step, you have no way of justifying the sudden
        regularisation. It happens by fiat.

        Torsten
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.