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

Re: [tied] PIE Word Formation (2)

Expand Messages
  • Piotr Gasiorowski
    ... not the first syllable of either *bhóros or *bhorós, but rather the suffixal *o of the first alternative *bhóros as opposed to the suffixal *o of the
    Message 1 of 21 , Apr 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      > Let me see if I understand: By "the first *o" my guess is you mean
      not the first syllable of either *bhóros or *bhorós, but rather the
      suffixal *o of the first alternative *bhóros as opposed to the
      suffixal *o of the second alternative *bhorós.

      No, no. I mean the first *o of either word.

      > So from this I imagine you mean that this suffixal *o reflects a
      vocalized sonorant which was prone to reduction to *u, as opposed to
      *o of other origin? Or do you actually mean the first syllable of
      either *bhóros or *bhorós? Continuing, I am not familiar with
      "0-metathesis". I have no idea what this is, and therefore cannot see
      how it relates to the change of suffixal *-o- to *-u-. I can guess
      that this has either been discussed previously on cybalist, or a
      dissertation about it has been cited, but I don't know where to look.

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/30940

      > But if the contrastive accent shift is all that is necessary to
      change *-o- to *-u-, doesn't that validate my point that all o-stems
      would have become u-stems, due to contrastive accent shift? Obviously
      I must misunderstand. Can you please elucidate? And what importance
      is vocalization (of the sonorant that became *-o-?) to the change of
      *-o- to *-u-? I am still very unclear about this matter.

      The vocalisation has nothing to do directly with the developments of
      the thematic vowel. I mentioned it only in the context of the relative
      chronology of PIE sound changes. At some point in the history of PIE
      unaccented thematic *o became possible. What's strange about that?
      Every change has a limited chronological "window". Formations like
      *bHóros are simply later, as a type, than those like *krétu-.

      > Are you implying that thematic *-e- actually did become reduced to
      *-i- in some paradigms? I've never heard of this and have no idea in
      which declensions or conjugations this occurred, regardless of when it
      happened, if it did. Can you please explain a little further,
      including in what forms we see the reduction of *-e- to *-i-?

      Originally, *o occurred before voiced consonants, *e elsewhere. My
      suggestion is that in cases like *-i-h2-, *-i-ko- or *-i-sto- we see a
      reflex of unaccented thematic *-e- followed by a suffix beginning with
      a voiceless vowel (cf. e.g. accented *-áh2 < *-é-h2). I also think
      it's quite possible that in compounds in which the first member was
      thematic, its final vowel was originally *-e- (as in the vocative),
      reduced to *-i-.

      Piotr
    • Andrew Jarrette
      Piotr Gasiorowski wrote: The vocalisation has nothing to do directly with the developments of the thematic vowel. I mentioned it only
      Message 2 of 21 , Apr 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

        The vocalisation has nothing to do directly with the developments of
        the thematic vowel. I mentioned it only in the context of the relative
        chronology of PIE sound changes. At some point in the history of PIE
        unaccented thematic *o became possible. What's strange about that?
        Every change has a limited chronological "window". Formations like
        *bHóros are simply later, as a type, than those like *krétu-.
        _____________
         
        Oh.  I understand now.  Regarding the idea of the vocalized sonorant, is this purely Jens Rasmussen's idea? (It seems quite brilliant, by the way)  And am I correct in thinking that he is a well-known published linguist?  Also, is his theory about the vocalized sonorant currently well-accepted, or is it still considered more speculative?  You seem to have embraced it wholeheartedly.  Personally, despite its brilliance it still seems rather complex to me, with some difficult sound combinations (e.g. *bhlXgmos with what he says would have been a consonantal *X, if I understand correctly), and the problem of having no other evidence of such a consonant besides its appearance as the later *o seems quite major to me.  But I don't know if my non-professional opinion matters to people like you (I mean that with respect).
        ___________________

        >> Originally, *o occurred before voiced consonants, *e elsewhere. My
        suggestion is that in cases like *-i-h2-, *-i-ko- or *-i-sto- we see a
        reflex of unaccented thematic *-e- followed by a suffix beginning with
        a voiceless vowel (cf. e.g. accented *-áh2 < *-é-h2).
         
        Do these suffixes begin with a voiceless vowel?  I thought *k, *st, and originally *h2 were all consonants.  Am I misunderstanding what you are saying again?
         
        Andrew Jarrette










      • Jens Elmegård Rasmussen
        ... sonorant, is this purely Jens Rasmussen s idea? (It seems quite brilliant, by the way). Thank you, Andrew. Yes, this has been entirely my own idea as long
        Message 3 of 21 , Apr 2, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...>
          wrote:

          > Oh. I understand now. Regarding the idea of the vocalized
          sonorant, is this purely Jens Rasmussen's idea? (It seems quite
          brilliant, by the way).

          Thank you, Andrew. Yes, this has been entirely my own idea as long
          as noone else has accepted it. That however seems to be slowly -
          very slowly - coming about. On a predecessor of this list, Alexis
          Manaster Ramer was kind enough to give it some heavy backing, and on
          Cybalist we have had many debates over details in it as well as on
          the fundamental question of the very existence of a consonantal
          prefix-turned-infix underlying some o-vowels of IE. As for my status
          in IE studies which you address in the following, that is for others
          to assess, but my own impression is that this discovery has come at
          a price. It is as if I am being met with excessive scepticism in
          some quarters of the field - but not in all. I feel faced with the
          situation that a suggestion coming from me is often more readily
          rejected than something much inferior coming from someone else. That
          has taught me to sharpen my arguments, so maybe it is all for the
          best.

          Jens
        • Piotr Gasiorowski
          ... sonorant, is this purely Jens Rasmussen s idea? (It seems quite brilliant, by the way) Well, Jens has already replied himself. ... That s definitely
          Message 4 of 21 , Apr 2, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...> wrote:

            > Oh. I understand now. Regarding the idea of the vocalized
            sonorant, is this purely Jens Rasmussen's idea? (It seems quite
            brilliant, by the way)

            Well, Jens has already replied himself.

            > And am I correct in thinking that he is a well-known published linguist?

            That's definitely correct.

            > Also, is his theory about the vocalized sonorant currently
            well-accepted, or is it still considered more speculative?

            It isn't generally accepted, but this fact has more to do with the
            sociology of academic life than with the merits or deficiencies of the
            theory itself. There are quite a few perfectly good theories rejected
            by many or most of our colleagues for reasons that seem to me entirely
            irrational. For example, the Francis/Normier theory of the "breaking"
            (diphthongisation) of *i and *u before *h2 and *h3 in Greek and
            Tocharian (now also in Armenian) is excellently supported by the data,
            and yet routinely denounced as "controversial" by authors who somehow
            don't bother to reveal what is so awfully controversial about it. I
            suppose it is controversial just because it has been "common
            knowledge" for decades that syllable final laryngeals just make vowels
            long.

            > You seem to have embraced it wholeheartedly.

            Not without some reluctance. I'd been vaguely aware of the o-infix
            theory before it was first metioned on Cybalist, but I'd never given
            it much serious thought. Our discussions made me have another look at
            it and I began to like it. It is a bit crazy, but it's crazy the way a
            brilliant idea should be. It unifies a variety of seemingly
            disconnected phenomena so little wonder it looks like a conjuring
            trick, but the argument seems watertight to me.

            > Personally, despite its brilliance it still seems rather complex to
            me, with some difficult sound combinations (e.g. *bhlXgmos with what
            he says would have been a consonantal *X, if I understand correctly),
            and the problem of having no other evidence of such a consonant
            besides its appearance as the later *o seems quite major to me. But I
            don't know if my non-professional opinion matters to people like you
            (I mean that with respect).

            Even the opinion of professional linguists doesn't really matter. What
            matters is a clear and convincing argument, and Jens does offer that.

            > Do these suffixes begin with a voiceless vowel? I thought *k, *st,
            and originally *h2 were all consonants. Am I misunderstanding what
            you are saying again?

            They are _voiceless_ consonants. Read again what I wrote: there was a
            time when the thematic vowel was regularly realised as *-o- before
            voiced consonants and as *e elsewhere, INCLUDING the position before
            voiceless consonants.

            Piotr
          • alexandru_mg3
            ... What ... Sorry, Piotr. With all my respect to Jens, beacuse is a great idea: But is not yet convincing: Jens needs to clear stipulate on what particular
            Message 5 of 21 , Apr 3, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
              > Even the opinion of professional linguists doesn't really matter.
              What
              > matters is a clear and convincing argument, and Jens does offer that.
              > Piotr
              >


              Sorry, Piotr. With all my respect to Jens, beacuse is a great idea:
              But is not yet convincing: Jens needs to clear stipulate on what
              particular conditions the o-grades appears, like:

              -> only some specific roots containing the consonant X? In this case
              he needs to come with a complete list of that roots.

              -> on some particular phonetic contexts? He needs to define that
              ones...

              etc...

              Marius
            • Rob
              ... I agree here, and would like to add that the contrastive accent may be partially attributable to prosodic factors. ... Regrettably, I cannot agree with
              Message 6 of 21 , Apr 3, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
                >
                > Nomina (ctd.)
                >
                > Contrastive accent and secondary full grades
                >
                > Substantives tend to be distinguished from related adjectives by
                > means of contrastive accent. The phenomenon can be illustrated with
                > such pairs as *bHór-o-s 'load, burden' : *bHor-ó- 'carrying', both
                > from the root *bHer- 'carry'). Note that in this case we are not
                > dealing with straightforward substantivisation -- there is a
                > diathetic contrast between the agentive meaning of the adjective and
                > the passive/resultative meaning of the noun ('something carried');
                > agent nouns like *bHor-ó-s 'carrier' are not distinguished from
                > adjectives. Feminine abstracts are accented on the thematic element
                > (*bHor-á-h2) irrespective of whether the focus is on an activity
                > ('act of carrying') or the corresponding state ('being carried,
                > motion').

                I agree here, and would like to add that the contrastive accent may be
                partially attributable to prosodic factors.

                > The unstressed o-vocalism of the *bHor-ó-/*bHor-áh2- type has been
                > exhaustively treated by Jens Rasmussen, who was kind enough to
                > present a convenient summary here:
                >
                > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/30940

                Regrettably, I cannot agree with Jens' theory at the present time.
                Instead, I currently favor an alternative hypothesis whereby the
                o-vocalism in the root comes from the pitch accent of that stage of
                IE. The idea is that, first of all, IE's accentuation had weakened
                from being stress-based to being pitched-based (or, at the very least,
                had shifted from stress-timed prosody to syllable-timed). At this
                point, the ablautend vowel had not yet differentiated into its
                qualitative grades. Therefore, the addition of the (originally
                genitive) adjectival suffix *-ó(s) resulted in the accent shifting to
                the suffix. The resulting low pitch on the root vowel lead to its
                later realization as *o, not *e.

                > The tendency to use contrastive accent must have operated throughout
                > the history of PIE and into the early "dialectal" stages. Several
                > chronological layers can be discerned. To begin with the oldest,
                > there was a time when accent retraction to a formerly unaccented
                > syllable caused the appearance of a full vowel there, while the
                > syllable that had lost its accent was phonetically reduced.

                Hmm. With all due respect, I fail to see how a full vowel could
                reappear after it had been lost. Perhaps this is shortsightedness on
                my part, however -- if so, please let me know.

                > In particular, thematic *-o- became *-u-. Let us imagine a root like
                > *kret- (a real example, with the approximate meaning of
                > 'strengthen'. The addition of anaccented adjectival suffix like
                > *-ró- forms a verbal adjective: *krt-ró- 'strengthened',
                > dissimilated to *krt-ó-.

                To me, this does not necessarily follow. Could it be possible, at
                least, for the form in question to derive from *krt-ó-? Obviously,
                the *-tó- participle cannot be used here, for we would then see
                *krstó- in IE outside of Indo-Iranian.

                > Accent retraction produces the noun *krét-u-s 'being strong, power'.
                > Note that the full vowel is inserted where it belongs, which means
                > that at that stage speakers were aware of the underlying vocalism of
                > the root: perhaps the actual realisation of the weak grade at that
                > time was *kr&t-, with an appreciable (even if reduced) vowel. Later
                > an adjective was formed from *krét-u- by another application of the
                > principle of contrastive accent, this time yielding *kr.t-ú- (at a
                > time when a stressed zero grade was already possible, but loss of
                > accent still caused vowel reduction).

                How likely do you think it is that the speakers would be aware of the
                "underlying vocalism of the root"? It seems more likely to me that
                *krét-u-s simply contains a suffix *-u. The end-stressed adjective,
                then, would seem to come from later prosodic factors, namely the
                rising intonation between an adjective and its head noun, resulting in
                a tendency for adjectives to be oxytone.

                > More recently, a similar scenario was re-enacted. From the root noun
                > *djeu- 'the bright sky, heaven' it's possible to derive thematic
                > *diw-ó- 'belonging to heaven, celestial', and then (on the analogy
                > of nouns like *krétu-) *déiw-o-s 'celestial being, deity'. Here the
                > vowel was inserted in the _wrong_ place, since the weak grade *diw-,
                > with the unstressed vowel reduced to zero, had become ambiguous. PIE
                > speakers had the same difficulty with other *CREC roots, which often
                > developed secondary full grades of the form *CERC. Note also that
                > the post-tonic reduction of the thematic vowel was no longer
                > obligatory at the stage in question. However, qualitative ablaut was
                > still productive, so when a new adjective of belonging was formed
                > from *déiw-o-s, it took the form of *[deiwo-]-ó- --> *diwi-ó-
                > 'belonging to the gods, divine, heavenly' (Skt. divyá-, Gk. di^os <
                > *diwios). Still later, another contrastive accent shift produced
                > another adjective without causing any segmental effects: *deiw-ó-
                > 'divine'.

                I'm afraid I cannot respond to this effectively without more
                information. If I may ask, where are the different forms attested?

                > The most recent layer contains cases like *mr.-tó- 'dead' vs.
                > *mr.'-to- 'murder (PGmc. *murDa-) or RV krs.n.á- 'black' vs.
                > kr.'s.n.a- 'blackness; a kind of dark antelope' or Kr's.n.a- (the
                > god).

                I would agree that, in the last stage(s) of IE, any vocalic phoneme
                could receive the accent. It also seems to me that the contrastive
                accent was a relatively recent feature within IE.

                - Rob
              • alexandru_mg3
                ... Don t worry, Jens: this is the normal scientific trend: 1. there are only fews that can generate new ideas. 2. there are only fews that can understand
                Message 7 of 21 , Apr 3, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Jens Elmegård Rasmussen <elme@...>
                  wrote:
                  > I feel faced with the
                  > situation that a suggestion coming from me is often more readily
                  > rejected than something much inferior coming from someone else. That
                  > has taught me to sharpen my arguments, so maybe it is all for the
                  > best.
                  >
                  > Jens
                  >

                  Don't worry, Jens: this is the "normal" scientific trend:

                  1. there are only fews that can generate new ideas.

                  2. there are only fews that can understand and propagate that new
                  ideas.

                  3. there are next some that based on the help of the second wave
                  arrived "to detail, refine, classify etc...the new ideas" making "a
                  theory"

                  4. and finally, the great majority will arrive only at the end : they
                  only repeat and propagate 'the current theory' making 'a Dogma' (=>
                  that usually is conservative in relation with the new ideas and the
                  generators of that ideas that 'are often more readily rejected than
                  something much inferior coming from someone else'.

                  However 'sooner or later': the scientific full loop arrived 'somehow'
                  to be executed from 1 to 4.

                  Unfortunately for you, 'knowing that you could push more on that new
                  direction if the trend will appear more quickly'...usually this will
                  not happen: due to the 'great majority' that 'preserved and propagated
                  the current dogma' and 'justified their existence only by only doing
                  this' : but somehow their role is necessary too...

                  (it's true that in addition there is also a lot "of noise" that always
                  appears all along the steps 1 to 4)


                  With all my respect,
                  Marius
                • Piotr Gasiorowski
                  ... It was unaccented, perhaps qualitatively reduced to some kind of schwa, but not yet lost completely. *per-tó- ([p&r-tó-]?) -- *pér-to- *pér-tu-. ...
                  Message 8 of 21 , Apr 3, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On 2006-04-03 17:45, Rob wrote:

                    > Hmm. With all due respect, I fail to see how a full vowel could
                    > reappear after it had been lost. Perhaps this is shortsightedness on
                    > my part, however -- if so, please let me know.

                    It was unaccented, perhaps qualitatively reduced to some kind of schwa,
                    but not yet lost completely. *per-tó- ([p&r-tó-]?) --> *pér-to- > *pér-tu-.

                    >> In particular, thematic *-o- became *-u-. Let us imagine a root like
                    >> *kret- (a real example, with the approximate meaning of
                    >> 'strengthen'. The addition of anaccented adjectival suffix like
                    >> *-ró- forms a verbal adjective: *krt-ró- 'strengthened',
                    >> dissimilated to *krt-ó-.
                    >
                    > To me, this does not necessarily follow. Could it be possible, at
                    > least, for the form in question to derive from *krt-ó-? Obviously,
                    > the *-tó- participle cannot be used here, for we would then see
                    > *krstó- in IE outside of Indo-Iranian.

                    I prefer the *-ró- solution, since it involves forms whose structure I
                    can understand. I don't know what kind of thing *krt-ó- would be.

                    > How likely do you think it is that the speakers would be aware of the
                    > "underlying vocalism of the root"?

                    I mean they would have known where the vowel should be inserted. One
                    obvious possibility (see above) is that the vowel slot wasn't quite
                    empty yet, so that the potential zero grades *kr&t- and *k&rt- were not
                    homophonous, though eventually they merged as *kr.t-.

                    >> More recently, a similar scenario was re-enacted. From the root noun
                    >> *djeu- 'the bright sky, heaven' it's possible to derive thematic
                    >> *diw-ó- 'belonging to heaven, celestial', and then (on the analogy
                    >> of nouns like *krétu-) *déiw-o-s 'celestial being, deity'. Here the
                    >> vowel was inserted in the _wrong_ place, since the weak grade *diw-,
                    >> with the unstressed vowel reduced to zero, had become ambiguous. PIE
                    >> speakers had the same difficulty with other *CREC roots, which often
                    >> developed secondary full grades of the form *CERC. Note also that
                    >> the post-tonic reduction of the thematic vowel was no longer
                    >> obligatory at the stage in question. However, qualitative ablaut was
                    >> still productive, so when a new adjective of belonging was formed
                    >> from *déiw-o-s, it took the form of *[deiwo-]-ó- --> *diwi-ó-
                    >> 'belonging to the gods, divine, heavenly' (Skt. divyá-, Gk. di^os <
                    >> *diwios). Still later, another contrastive accent shift produced
                    >> another adjective without causing any segmental effects: *deiw-ó-
                    >> 'divine'.
                    >
                    > I'm afraid I cannot respond to this effectively without more
                    > information. If I may ask, where are the different forms attested?

                    The sequence is hypothetical, but the various forms are rather
                    well-known. I have no direct evidence for an original contrast between
                    older *déiw-o- and zero-derived *deiw-ó-, but I can't think of a better
                    way of accounting for the latter (RV devá-). Old Indic went even further
                    in multiplying derived forms: RV devyá- 'divine power' (derived from
                    <devá-> and vr.ddhied <dáivya> 'divine, typical of the gods' (with yet
                    another accent shift!).

                    Piotr
                  • aquila_grande
                    I am scheptical about the idea that IE originally had only one wovel. For example: Why propose that all -u is the reduction or an -ew and all -i the reduction
                    Message 9 of 21 , Apr 3, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I am scheptical about the idea that IE originally had only one wovel.


                      For example: Why propose that all -u is the reduction or an -ew and
                      all -i the reduction of an -ei, when there ideed exist cases of -u
                      and -i without any ablaut althernation i/ei and u/eu.

                      And also in many cases where such an ablaut exist, the original state
                      could have been a plain -i or -u, and the ablaut been a result from
                      analogy.



                      And why propose that all -a has the originin an h2 + an -e?, in cases
                      where the h2 has left no other trace anywhere?


                      I think this standard consept about the original IE phonologyis far
                      too schematic.
                    • etherman23
                      ... IMO, *ei and *eu are the result of stressing *i and *u, rather than *i and *u being the zero-grade of *ei and *eu. But that s just me. ... I think there
                      Message 10 of 21 , Apr 3, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "aquila_grande" <aquila_grande@...>
                        wrote:
                        >
                        > For example: Why propose that all -u is the reduction or an -ew and
                        > all -i the reduction of an -ei, when there ideed exist cases of -u
                        > and -i without any ablaut althernation i/ei and u/eu.

                        IMO, *ei and *eu are the result of stressing *i and *u, rather than *i
                        and *u being the zero-grade of *ei and *eu. But that's just me.

                        > And why propose that all -a has the originin an h2 + an -e?, in cases
                        > where the h2 has left no other trace anywhere?

                        I think there have been discussions of some words where *a couldn't
                        come from *h2e because the accents in Baltic and Slavic don't work
                        right. IIRC, the word for salt is an example.

                        > I think this standard consept about the original IE phonologyis far
                        > too schematic.

                        I can't see PIE having less than 3 vowels. Even then 4 makes more sense.
                      • Piotr Gasiorowski
                        ... I don t make the stronger claim ( PIE had no primary high vowels ). On the other hand, it is rather obvious that many instances of *i and *u are secondary,
                        Message 11 of 21 , Apr 4, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On 2006-04-04 01:13, aquila_grande wrote:

                          > I am scheptical about the idea that IE originally had only one wovel.

                          I don't make the stronger claim ("PIE had no primary high vowels"). On
                          the other hand, it is rather obvious that many instances of *i and *u
                          are secondary, resulting from the vocalisation of glides or (as in the
                          model I support) from the phonetic reduction of non-high vowels in some
                          positions.

                          > For example: Why propose that all -u is the reduction or an -ew and
                          > all -i the reduction of an -ei, when there ideed exist cases of -u
                          > and -i without any ablaut althernation i/ei and u/eu.
                          >
                          > And also in many cases where such an ablaut exist, the original state
                          > could have been a plain -i or -u, and the ablaut been a result from
                          > analogy.

                          I have already said that some full grades are analogical. This is
                          especially clear in those cases where the full vowel is "misplaced", as
                          in *deiwos.

                          > And why propose that all -a has the originin an h2 + an -e?, in cases
                          > where the h2 has left no other trace anywhere?

                          Again, I nowhere propose any such thing. There are linguists who
                          emphatically deny the existence of "non-laryngeal" *a in PIE, but I'm
                          not one of them.

                          > I think this standard consept about the original IE phonologyis far
                          > too schematic.

                          Then I'm glad it isn't _my_ concept :-)

                          Piotr
                        • Rob
                          ... I think it would be more likely for a schwa to be maintained between two stops (e.g. *pekW-tó- *p&kWtó-) than between a stop and a resonant. To me, it
                          Message 12 of 21 , Apr 4, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > On 2006-04-03 17:45, Rob wrote:
                            >
                            > > Hmm. With all due respect, I fail to see how a full vowel could
                            > > reappear after it had been lost. Perhaps this is shortsightedness
                            > > on my part, however -- if so, please let me know.
                            >
                            > It was unaccented, perhaps qualitatively reduced to some kind of
                            > schwa, but not yet lost completely. *per-tó- ([p&r-tó-]?) -->
                            > *pér-to- > *pér-tu-.

                            I think it would be more likely for a schwa to be maintained between
                            two stops (e.g. *pekW-tó- > *p&kWtó-) than between a stop and a
                            resonant. To me, it seems like what you posit above is really just a
                            means to try to explain why the accent shifted.

                            > > To me, this does not necessarily follow. Could it be possible, at
                            > > least, for the form in question to derive from *krt-ó-?
                            > > Obviously, the *-tó- participle cannot be used here, for we would
                            > > then see *krstó- in IE outside of Indo-Iranian.
                            >
                            > I prefer the *-ró- solution, since it involves forms whose structure
                            > I can understand. I don't know what kind of thing *krt-ó- would be.

                            Well, if there was an old root noun *kerts, or *krets, the genitive
                            form would be *krtós. However, I do see it being possible that
                            *krtrós became *krtós with dissimilatory loss.

                            > > How likely do you think it is that the speakers would be aware of
                            > > the "underlying vocalism of the root"?
                            >
                            > I mean they would have known where the vowel should be inserted. One
                            > obvious possibility (see above) is that the vowel slot wasn't quite
                            > empty yet, so that the potential zero grades *kr&t- and *k&rt- were
                            > not homophonous, though eventually they merged as *kr.t-.

                            I suppose that could be true, if the full vowel and schwa were still
                            perceived to be stress-conditioned allophones of each other.

                            > > I'm afraid I cannot respond to this effectively without more
                            > > information. If I may ask, where are the different forms
                            > > attested?
                            >
                            > The sequence is hypothetical, but the various forms are rather
                            > well-known. I have no direct evidence for an original contrast
                            > between older *déiw-o- and zero-derived *deiw-ó-, but I can't think
                            > of a better way of accounting for the latter (RV devá-). Old Indic
                            > went even further in multiplying derived forms: RV devyá- 'divine
                            > power' (derived from <devá-> and vr.ddhied <dáivya> 'divine, typical
                            > of the gods' (with yet another accent shift!).

                            Thanks for the info! It seems that the situation in Old Indic was
                            convoluted indeed. Admittedly, I had not factored vrddhi into the
                            equation. The forms _devá-_ and _devyá-_, with full vocalism (be it
                            *e or *o), suggest recency within IE. Vrddhi is another story
                            altogether. Do you think that the form _dáivya_ was inherited from IE
                            itself or is a later innovation?

                            - Rob
                          • Piotr Gasiorowski
                            ... I think it s an inner Indo-Iranian generalisation of an inherited pattern of full-vowel insertion. Forms like (as if from *dé:iw-jo-, where
                            Message 13 of 21 , Apr 4, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On 2006-04-04 17:27, Rob wrote:

                              > Thanks for the info! It seems that the situation in Old Indic was
                              > convoluted indeed. Admittedly, I had not factored vrddhi into the
                              > equation. The forms _devá-_ and _devyá-_, with full vocalism (be it
                              > *e or *o), suggest recency within IE. Vrddhi is another story
                              > altogether. Do you think that the form _dáivya_ was inherited from IE
                              > itself or is a later innovation?

                              I think it's an inner Indo-Iranian generalisation of an inherited
                              pattern of full-vowel insertion. Forms like <dáivya-> (as if from
                              *dé:iw-jo-, where *e:i results from infixing an extra *e into *ei, are
                              something of an IIr. speciality.

                              Piotr
                            • Andrew Jarrette
                              ... I think it s an inner Indo-Iranian generalisation of an inherited pattern of full-vowel insertion. Forms like (as if from *dé:iw-jo-, where *e:i results
                              Message 14 of 21 , Apr 5, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
                                On 2006-04-04 17:27, Rob wrote:

                                > Thanks for the info! It seems that the situation in Old Indic was
                                > convoluted indeed. Admittedly, I had not factored vrddhi into the
                                > equation. The forms _devá-_ and _devyá-_, with full vocalism (be it
                                > *e or *o), suggest recency within IE. Vrddhi is another story
                                > altogether. Do you think that the form _dáivya_ was inherited from IE
                                > itself or is a later innovation?

                                I think it's an inner Indo-Iranian generalisation of an inherited
                                pattern of full-vowel insertion. Forms like (as if from
                                *dé:iw-jo-, where *e:i results from infixing an extra *e into *ei, are
                                something of an IIr. speciality.

                                Piotr



                                ---------------------------
                                 
                                Does vrddhi occur in all Indo-Iranian or only in Sanskrit?  Because if it occurs only in Sanskrit, I wonder whether it is not the result of the reinterpretation of an alternation between a and a:, due to an earlier alternation of *e and *o in open syllables, as an alternation between short and long -- and that this long vowel was generalized to all derivative formations, including before resonants (long diphthongs and a:m, a:n, a:r before consonants).
                                 
                                Andrew Jarrette
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.