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

[tied] Re: IE lexical accent

Expand Messages
  • elmeras2000
    ... *e: in ... results. ... su at ... the ... there ... something ... itself! ... That indeed is where I suppose the /e:/ belongs in cases like this. ... to
    Message 1 of 90 , Jul 31, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@g... wrote:
      > Me:
      > > Yes, "in your opinion" (aka "my idle assumption"). There is no
      *e: in
      > > either forms so you have to dream it up in order to get your
      > Jens:
      > > There certainly is an allomorph with /e:/ in the locative *pe:d-
      su 'at
      > > the feet' reflected in OIr. i:s and Alb. peùr-posh 'down'. Also,
      > > Avestan loc.sg. daNm 'in the house' reflects a long vowel; thus
      > > must have been a long-e: form somewhere in the inflection,
      > Amazing how you warp the original meaning of the statement into
      > else and then cloud the issue. Yes, there are forms with *e: in IE
      > I was clearly talking about the _underlying_ forms however in some
      > prestage of IE.

      That indeed is where I suppose the /e:/ belongs in cases like this.

      > We've gone over *pe:d-su. It's a bare locative with *-su attached
      to it.
      > Originally being *pe:d for both the singular and plural, its
      length 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-
      > syllabic nominal forms are always given added length.

      Not true.

      > This same rule
      > 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 and
      in this
      > respect differs a little from *wodr which derives from a _verb_
      > *wed-.

      This is based on nothing at all.

      > > Everybody else also accepts that *o and *e are there, but see
      they 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-
      > > *H2ner- as underlying.
      > The reason is clear. The nominative is automatically lengthened.
      > case then cannot give us the original vocalism. The accusative
      > the original vocalism. The weak cases are lesser cases that have
      > vocalism in many paradigms. Ergo, they too cannot be taken as
      > original vocalism. Only the accusative is our best hope.
      > 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 this
      > 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-.

      > Me:
      > > Where on earth is the reflex of **wedns? Why isn't _this_ double-
      > > asterisked?
      > Jens:
      > > One might say the same about (*)*wedno's.
      > Hittite /widenas/

      Then that's where it is.

      > > If you accept *wedno's you would also accept *yekW-n-o's which
      has a
      > > nom.-acc. *ye':kW-r.
      > 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,
      > genitive shows the root as *wedn-. The *e here is yet again
      > the reduced form of *o in the nominoaccusative *wodr and *-os is
      > 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
      analogical creation.

      > > That ought to count for something, making it a fair assumption
      > > strong forms of such paradigm forms can have o- or e:-vocalism.
      > 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 thematic
      > > in *-os, saying that this is in origin a misanalyzed genitive. I
      > > got this backwards, it *is* hard to remember since there are no
      facts to
      > > tell one how the story was, it has to be remembered by heart.
      > At least you get it now. Excellent.

      It is not so excellent if I also understand that it cannot be true.
      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.:
      > > There isn't. The thematic form of *kWe'r-t is *kWe'r-e-t, like
      that of
      > > *gWhe'n-t is *gWhe'n-e-t. The generally accepted reason we do
      not find
      > > the structure *kWe'r-e-t as an aorist injunctive is that the
      > > subjunctive became a thematic present, not aorist.
      > Alright. Let me see if I understand correctly. You're saying that
      > durative and the aorist were both athematic at one time.


      > Are you
      > saying that the durative was marked with *-i while aorist wasn't?

      Yes. Only, the durative could also be unmarked ("injunctive

      > So thematicizing the verb forms caused the subjunctive. This
      > 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
      reacted against.

      > Can you draw me
      > a pretty diagram?

      That has been done many times. It looks like this:

      Durative ("present")
      inj. *gWhén-t
      ind. *gWhén-t-i
      sbj. *gWhén-e-t(i)
      -> prs.inj./ind. *gWhén-e-t(i) => sbj. *gWhén-e-e-t(i)

      Punctual ("aorist")
      inj. *kWér-t
      ind. *(H1)é *kWer-t ? (role of augment unsettled)
      sbj. *kWér-e-t(i)
      -> 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 identical
      > > which however coalesced phonetically?
      > 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 reason
      > some forms should come to be athematic and others not lies merely
      > the vocalism of the thematic vowel. Duratives contained *-e- while
      > aorists and perfects were given the disappearing *-a-. The
      > in vocalism between aspects is very reminiscent of Semitic grammar
      > coincidentally.

      It 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
      _aorist_ subjunctives.

      > > 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.

      > Me:
      > > Afterall, if the genitive had *-os in the singular, we should
      > > plural **-oses right?
      > Jens:
      > > Wrong, of course. The genitive plural should not have a
      > > plural morpheme hanging on it.
      > 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 the
      > nominative and accusative cases.

      What *is* the point? The gen.sg. morpheme *is* *-os. In pronominal
      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.

    • Brent J. Ermlick
      ... Very interesting! Please let us know when he is ready to publish. -- Brent J. Ermlick Veritas liberabit uos brent3@bermls.oau.org
      Message 90 of 90 , Aug 9, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        In article <local.pie/ceipgs+bmv8@...> elmeras2000 <jer@...> wrote:
        > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@g... wrote:
        >> What correlates with IE *str-, for
        >> example? It's laughable that anybody would even continue to try to
        > find
        >> 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.

        Very interesting! Please let us know when he is ready to publish.

        Brent J. Ermlick Veritas liberabit uos
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.