[tied] Re: IE lexical accent
- --- In email@example.com, enlil@g... wrote:
> Me:*e: in
> > Yes, "in your opinion" (aka "my idle assumption"). There is no
> > either forms so you have to dream it up in order to get yourresults.
> > There certainly is an allomorph with /e:/ in the locative *pe:d-
> > the feet' reflected in OIr. i:s and Alb. peùr-posh 'down'. Also,the
> > Avestan loc.sg. daNm 'in the house' reflects a long vowel; thusthere
> > must have been a long-e: form somewhere in the inflection,something
> Amazing how you warp the original meaning of the statement into
> else and then cloud the issue. Yes, there are forms with *e: in IEitself!
> I was clearly talking about the _underlying_ forms however in someThat indeed is where I suppose the /e:/ belongs in cases like this.
> prestage of IE.
> We've gone over *pe:d-su. It's a bare locative with *-su attached
> Originally being *pe:d for both the singular and plural, itslength can
> be explained simply by the fact that it is a monosyllabic word.What rule is that? Let's have five more examples. I do not know an
example of a root noun with lengthened grade specifically appearing
in the locative. It is a very strange attitude that you accept a
locative **pé:d, but just won't have it be significant.
> Mono-Not true.
> syllabic nominal forms are always given added length.
> This same ruleverbs
> also explains a locative *de:m as well as the nominal origin of
> like *ste:u-. The word *ye:kWr is from an earlier noun *ye:kW andin this
> respect differs a little from *wodr which derives from a _verb_stem
> *wed-.This is based on nothing at all.
> > Everybody else also accepts that *o and *e are there, but seethey are not
> > alone. In 'foot' you have *po:d-, *pod-, *ped-, and *pe:d-.In 'man' you
> > have *Hne:r, *H2ner- and *H2nr-. For some reason you pick *pod-and
> > *H2ner- as underlying.This
> The reason is clear. The nominative is automatically lengthened.
> case then cannot give us the original vocalism. The accusativerepresents
> the original vocalism. The weak cases are lesser cases that havereduced
> vocalism in many paradigms. Ergo, they too cannot be taken asrepresenting
> original vocalism. Only the accusative is our best hope.reflected
> So yes, I pick *pod- (as reflected in *pod-m) and *xner- (as
> in *xner-m). The choice is clear unless you have a bias for thisstrange
> length rule.I have a bias for regularity. That can be achieved by positing *pe:d-
, *de:m-, *H2ner-, *ye:kW-r/n- and *we:d-r/n-.
>Then that's where it is.
> > Where on earth is the reflex of **wedns? Why isn't _this_ double-
> > asterisked?
> > One might say the same about (*)*wedno's.
> Hittite /widenas/
> > If you accept *wedno's you would also accept *yekW-n-o's which
> > nom.-acc. *ye':kW-r.the
> Yes. You have the reduction of *e: in the strong cases to *e and
> addition of *-os, not *-s, to the heteroclitic stem. With *wodr,the
> genitive shows the root as *wedn-. The *e here is yet againrepresenting
> the reduced form of *o in the nominoaccusative *wodr and *-os isagain
> attached to the consonant-ending stem.You can get *wed-n- by shortening **we:d-n-, and *wod-r by
lengthening **we:d-r. I therefore derive the form *wód-r from an
earlier collective which makes excellent sense and represents a
derivation one has to use for other examples also. That makes the
historical collective *wéd-o:r (or whatever we may agree on) a later
> > That ought to count for something, making it a fair assumption
> > strong forms of such paradigm forms can have o- or e:-vocalism.original.
> I never objected to that. However, lengthened stems are not
I think they are. That assumption is the cornerstone of my ablaut
investigations; I'll give it up the minute I hear something better
or just half as good. By "original" I here mean "present before the
known ablaut rules began to work". I would suppose the lengthened-
grade root vocalism expressed a note of durativity or habituality,
perhaps also collectivity.
> > Now, you have also told us a story about the nom.sg. of thematicstems
> > in *-os, saying that this is in origin a misanalyzed genitive. Isomehow
> > got this backwards, it *is* hard to remember since there are nofacts to
> > tell one how the story was, it has to be remembered by heart.It is not so excellent if I also understand that it cannot be true.
> At least you get it now. Excellent.
If the thematic nominative in *-o-s were a resegmented old genitive
in *-os it should not be possible for it to be unaccented which it
often is. And its vocalic part should not alternate the way the
thematic vowel does, seeing that the vowel of the genitive ending
alternates in a totally different way. This means that they are not
> Concerning the thematic differences between dur. and aor.:that of
> > There isn't. The thematic form of *kWe'r-t is *kWe'r-e-t, like
> > *gWhe'n-t is *gWhe'n-e-t. The generally accepted reason we donot find
> > the structure *kWe'r-e-t as an aorist injunctive is that theaorist
> > subjunctive became a thematic present, not aorist.the
> Alright. Let me see if I understand correctly. You're saying that
> durative and the aorist were both athematic at one time.Yes.
> Are youYes. Only, the durative could also be unmarked ("injunctive
> saying that the durative was marked with *-i while aorist wasn't?
> So thematicizing the verb forms caused the subjunctive. Thissubjunctive
> later came to form the thematic present. Is that it?Yes. It was apparently an ongoing process before and after the
disintegration of the protolanguage. Some original subjunctives had
already become indicatives in PIE, others followed in the individual
As always, the role of Anatolian is hard to make out. The only
simple answer I can see is that of Schindler: Anatolian abolished
the very structure "full-grade + thematic vowel" with verbs, even
including the roots that formed it. It looks like excessive zeal in
the abolition of the subjunctive. That only makes sense if there
*was* a subjunctive in pre-Anatolian and some subjunctives were
already being used as indicatives in a linguistic norm that was
> Can you draw meThat has been done many times. It looks like this:
> a pretty diagram?
-> prs.inj./ind. *gWhén-e-t(i) => sbj. *gWhén-e-e-t(i)
ind. *(H1)é *kWer-t ? (role of augment unsettled)
-> prs.inj./ind. *kWér-e-t(i) => prs.sbj. *kWér-e-e-t(i)
> > So you believe there was originally an athematic present and a
> > present which were formally distinct but functioned the same?And also
> > both an athematic aorist and a thematic aorist of identicalfunction,
> > which however coalesced phonetically?Syncope
> No, I believe in simplicity. I feel that all verb forms were once
> thematic, whether it was durative, aorist or perfect. The rule of
> is that *e reduces to *a and *a becomes zero. So, the only reasonthat
> some forms should come to be athematic and others not lies merelyin
> the vocalism of the thematic vowel. Duratives contained *-e- whilethe
> aorists and perfects were given the disappearing *-a-. Thedifferences
> in vocalism between aspects is very reminiscent of Semitic grammarIt may even be adequate for that. I can't see how it could be
construed to fit the facts of IE. In all we have to go by the root
aorist and the root present are structured the same. You introduce a
difference in vocalism between them, and for simplicity's sake at
that. It is surely much simpler (and free of arbitrary choices) to
have them be strucured alike and form their subjunctives in the same
way, and have some subjunctives become indicatives in pre-PIE times
already, just a they did (continued to do) in historical times.
It may be noted that the reduplicated thematic present type *sí-sd-e-
ti will emerge from the subjunctive of the type *dhi-dhéH1-ti (sbj.
I am not sure to what extent both aspect stems were represented
among the earliest round of thematic presents. Perhaps they were all
> > If Finnish has had syncope, how is the rule to be formulated?
> I don't know. You're the one theorizing it so get to it and
> something credible ;)No, read again, it's the other way around. I do not assume syncope
for Finnish, and I do not need it. You assume an underlying vowel in
the ending *-it, which in some forms is not present, so I ask you by
what rule you made it disappear. That sounds fair to me.
> > Afterall, if the genitive had *-os in the singular, we should
> > plural **-oses right?nominative
> > Wrong, of course. The genitive plural should not have a
> > plural morpheme hanging on it.plurality
> That was my whole point. We don't find it which means that
> in the genitive is not original to the language like it is for theWhat *is* the point? The gen.sg. morpheme *is* *-os. In pronominal
> nominative and accusative cases.
forms like *tóysoom we do seem to have a collocation of a plural
stem and the genitive morpheme (*-s, zero-grade of *-os). It is
anybody's guess what *-oom is.
- In article <local.pie/ceipgs+bmv8@...> elmeras2000 <jer@...> wrote:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, enlil@g... wrote:Very interesting! Please let us know when he is ready to publish.
>> What correlates with IE *str-, for
>> example? It's laughable that anybody would even continue to try to
>> a correlate with this in Uralic or EA.
> Laugh all you like, the code appears to have been partly cracked now
> by a young candidate student of my own. The IE initial clusters have
> been found to correspond to simple consonants in Uralic. I can say
> no more about it at this point without special permission.
Brent J. Ermlick Veritas liberabit uos