Re: [tied] IE vowels: The sequel.
- --- In email@example.com, enlil@g... wrote:
> > 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
> 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
> > I made it appear that you were right about /i/ being restrictedto
> > pretonic position wherever regular.conclusions
> It's irrelevant. The overall pattern of IE has led me to the
> 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 thelatest stage
> of IE has been significantly modified to the point that the farless
> common _athematic_ stems are the ones that show any trace of theoriginal
> accent system.base my
> Any fool can see that the accent of thematic stems has
> been regularized to the initial syllable and it is on this that I
> 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 endup
> with conclusions about pre-IE accentuation that will defy what wecome
> to see in IE itself, just as there will be facts about Old Englishthat
> 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 ashamedthe
> that it violates statistics in this case? No, because only you are
> one that takes things out of context and generalizes to the pointof
> 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 inregards to
> IE accentuation, statistics will not tell us that the acrostaticparadigm
> is quite recent. It will instead betray us unless we properlyweigh 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 afterthe /i/.
> Oh my. I feel violated by your irrelevant trickery. How might I
> myself up and dust myself off?You can't.
> Why, I will now fashion a noose aroundto
> my neck and hang my desperate soul from a sturdy oak tree in order
> remove myself from your unbearable disdain >:Psaid,
> In this case, I really don't care one way or another what you've
> because I will still arrive at the same conclusions based on whatI've
> found beforehand without any of your input.Indeed, without any input.
> > Your "*xargi-" is in reality *H2r.g^-í- in both Greek argí-pousthe *i,
> > and Vedic r.jí-s'van-.
> Minor detail in the first syllable. The accent here is still on
> 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.together), one
> 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
> would have to think up a compound with a first element that isthematic
> and a second element that is athematic. In this way, we mightconceivably
> get accent on the second stem in order to see a pretonic *i-stem,change
> assuming that such rare roots would not be prone to analogical
> or would truly be considered an athematic compound in all in orderto
> 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_ athematicstems
> that preserve original accent at all, we can either wait for theperfect
> evidence to come our way to spoonfeed us the result... or we canuse our
> noggin' and piece it together on our own.Not this way we can't.
> Yes, I know, you're afraidpeople,
> of extrapolation as a logical tool and mistake it, as do most
> with fertile imagination.I see a most sterile and counterproductive stubbornness in this
insistence on what is wrong even as formulated, no mistake about
> The two are really not the same sinceignorant
> extrapolation is still based on facts while imagination is just
> 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'sadjective-
> > suffix representative -i- *before* the accent. It just does notseem
> > to exist.other
> For the umpteenth time, it's Acrostatic Regularization and some
> accentuation changes in Late IE that hinder your discovery. You maymean
> never find such a thing, to be brutally honest, but that doesn't
> what I'm saying is baseless or untrue. There are otherconsiderations
> 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 feelterrible
> > about it. I'm not even shamed to admit it feels just fine.the
> 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
> one I set for you that you fall into every single time. This trapis
> called constructive reasoning. What you've shown by this exerciseis
> that, being unable to demonstrate your points of view with anymodicum of
> logic, you now resort to trickery in order to 'attack' me (orwhatever
> it was supposed to be) out of obvious desperation. If you aredesperate,
> it suggests that you may have seen some worthy points come out ofmy
> posts and rather than accept any of them outright, you will firstrepress
> them out of fear of being wrong, hell, even throw a fewcondascending
> ditties my way from time to time while you slowly digest theinevitables.
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.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, enlil@g... wrote:
> > 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
> > then the accent was moved, uniformly accross the paradigm, sinceI think it makes it easier.
> > there was no way to reconstruct the original irregularity?
> You think two steps are easier than one, eh? Hmm.
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
In your single step, you have no way of justifying the sudden
regularisation. It happens by fiat.