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

Compensatory lengthening

Expand Messages
  • tgpedersen
    I don t understand the compensatory lengthening Latin pe:s, Greek pous. I seems to me they are compensated for something they didn t quite lose. There is not
    Message 1 of 7 , Sep 14, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I don't understand the compensatory lengthening Latin pe:s,
      Greek pous. I seems to me they are compensated for something
      they didn't quite lose. There is not much phonological sense
      in a rule that removes part of the consonants in auslaut. All
      or nothing I say. It must have been nominative pe:, in composites
      -i-po:, and the nominative -s analogically restored later.

      Similarly in verbs with the secondary endings.
      Let's take *bhudh- "wake up, be present"

      *bhudh-om
      *bhudh-s
      *bhudh-t
      ...
      *bhudh-ont

      becomes

      *bhudh-om
      *bhu:
      *bhu:
      ...
      *bhudh-ont

      from which we may extract two roots *bhudh- and *bhu:-
      (and we don't have to write *bhuH- any more)


      Torsten
    • Piotr Gasiorowski
      ... The actual form of the nom.sg. was *po:ds, phonetically *[po:ts], and simplifications of the final cluster are branch-specific (cf. Skt. pa:t with regular
      Message 2 of 7 , Sep 14, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        On 2006-09-14 10:14, tgpedersen wrote:

        > I don't understand the compensatory lengthening Latin pe:s,
        > Greek pous. I seems to me they are compensated for something
        > they didn't quite lose. There is not much phonological sense
        > in a rule that removes part of the consonants in auslaut. All
        > or nothing I say. It must have been nominative pe:, in composites
        > -i-po:, and the nominative -s analogically restored later.

        The actual form of the nom.sg. was *po:ds, phonetically *[po:ts], and
        simplifications of the final cluster are branch-specific (cf. Skt. pa:t
        with regular t < *ts). The length isn't compensatory, or to be more
        precise it doesn't compensate for a lost segment. The nom.sg. *-s (but
        not just any *-s!) lengthens vowels in the final syllables of
        consonantal stems irrespective of whether it stays or goes (as in
        *p&2té:r, etc.). It was lost after *r, *n, *s and *j (probably also
        after *m and *l), but not e.g. in *wo:kW-s, *k^lo:p-s, *népo:t-s or
        *dié:u-s, where we find length nevertheless. Jens's hypothesis is that
        the nom.sg. ending was originally voiced *-z rather than *-s, and that
        the difference has something to do with the phonetic lengthening
        (phonemicised upon the merger of *-z with *-s). The o-colour of the
        thematic vowel in the nom.sg. *-o-s is also ascribed to the original
        voicing of *-z.

        Curiously, the collective suffix *-h2 also lengthens vowels in the same
        fashion, but final *-h2 can't have been voiced, judging from the fact
        that there is no o-colouring of the thematic vowel before it.

        The whole business has been discussed before. Try key phrases such as
        "Szemerényi lengthening" in searching the archived messages.

        Piotr
      • Mate Kapovic
        Piotr said:
        Message 3 of 7 , Sep 14, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Piotr said:
           
          <Curiously, the collective suffix *-h2 also lengthens vowels in the same
          <fashion, but final *-h2 can't have been voiced, judging from the fact
          <that there is no o-colouring of the thematic vowel before it.
           
          Isn't it possible to say that *-VCh2 > *-V:C (dropping of *-h2 and compensatory lengthening) > *-V:Ch2 (analogical restoring of *-h2 by analogy to *-eh2 etc.)?
           
          Mate
        • tgpedersen
          ... the same ... I think instead I want to go the whole hog here: *-VC - *-V:, and *then* + *-h2 - *V:h2 - (analogical restoring of stem) *-V:Ch2 Note long
          Message 4 of 7 , Sep 14, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Mate Kapovic" <mkapovic@...> wrote:
            >
            > Piotr said:
            >
            > <Curiously, the collective suffix *-h2 also lengthens vowels in
            the same
            > <fashion, but final *-h2 can't have been voiced, judging from the fact
            > <that there is no o-colouring of the thematic vowel before it.
            >
            > Isn't it possible to say that *-VCh2 > *-V:C (dropping of *-h2 and
            >compensatory lengthening) > *-V:Ch2 (analogical restoring of *-h2 by
            >analogy to *-eh2 etc.)?

            I think instead I want to go the whole hog here:
            *-VC -> *-V:, and *then* + *-h2 -> *V:h2 -> (analogical restoring
            of stem) *-V:Ch2
            Note long vowel, so -h2 can't get at it. I think the *-h2 suffix
            is late PIE, picked up from some substrate, note the many
            substrate words in -ak at the Mediterranean.


            Torsten
          • tgpedersen
            ... Or maybe it was an athematic ablative. ... As I said, and I don t like it. ... And I don t like that either. ... How about instead, as I proposed, an
            Message 5 of 7 , Sep 14, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
              >
              > On 2006-09-14 10:14, tgpedersen wrote:
              >
              > > I don't understand the compensatory lengthening Latin pe:s,
              > > Greek pous. I seems to me they are compensated for something
              > > they didn't quite lose. There is not much phonological sense
              > > in a rule that removes part of the consonants in auslaut. All
              > > or nothing I say. It must have been nominative pe:, in composites
              > > -i-po:, and the nominative -s analogically restored later.
              >

              > The actual form of the nom.sg. was *po:ds, phonetically *[po:ts],
              > and simplifications of the final cluster are branch-specific
              > (cf. Skt. pa:t with regular t < *ts).

              Or maybe it was an athematic ablative.


              >The length isn't compensatory, or to be more
              > precise it doesn't compensate for a lost segment.

              As I said, and I don't like it.


              >The nom.sg. *-s (but not just any *-s!)

              And I don't like that either.


              >lengthens vowels in the final syllables of
              > consonantal stems irrespective of whether it stays or goes (as in
              > *p&2té:r, etc.). It was lost after *r, *n, *s and *j (probably also
              > after *m and *l), but not e.g. in *wo:kW-s, *k^lo:p-s, *népo:t-s or
              > *dié:u-s, where we find length nevertheless. Jens's hypothesis is that
              > the nom.sg. ending was originally voiced *-z rather than *-s, and that
              > the difference has something to do with the phonetic lengthening
              > (phonemicised upon the merger of *-z with *-s).

              How about instead, as I proposed, an exceptionless phonetic rule and
              sporadic restauration of stem auslaut and/or nom. -s?


              >The o-colour of the
              > thematic vowel in the nom.sg. *-o-s is also ascribed to the original
              > voicing of *-z.

              As I recounted some massages back, and proposed that nom. was not
              *-oz, but *-oNs.


              Yes, all that is the standard theory. What do you think of my
              proposal?


              Torsten
            • Piotr Gasiorowski
              ... I m afraid I don t follow. Why should the Skt. nominative be an ablative, of all things? ... Sorry, but it happens to be that way. ... It isn t sporadic.
              Message 6 of 7 , Sep 14, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                On 2006-09-14 18:49, tgpedersen wrote:

                >> The actual form of the nom.sg. was *po:ds, phonetically *[po:ts],
                >> and simplifications of the final cluster are branch-specific
                >> (cf. Skt. pa:t with regular t < *ts).
                >
                > Or maybe it was an athematic ablative.

                I'm afraid I don't follow. Why should the Skt. nominative be an
                ablative, of all things?

                >> The length isn't compensatory, or to be more
                >> precise it doesn't compensate for a lost segment.
                >
                > As I said, and I don't like it.
                >
                >
                >> The nom.sg. *-s (but not just any *-s!)
                >
                > And I don't like that either.

                Sorry, but it happens to be that way.

                >> lengthens vowels in the final syllables of
                >> consonantal stems irrespective of whether it stays or goes (as in
                >> *p&2té:r, etc.). It was lost after *r, *n, *s and *j (probably also
                >> after *m and *l), but not e.g. in *wo:kW-s, *k^lo:p-s, *népo:t-s or
                >> *dié:u-s, where we find length nevertheless. Jens's hypothesis is that
                >> the nom.sg. ending was originally voiced *-z rather than *-s, and that
                >> the difference has something to do with the phonetic lengthening
                >> (phonemicised upon the merger of *-z with *-s).
                >
                > How about instead, as I proposed, an exceptionless phonetic rule and
                > sporadic restauration of stem auslaut and/or nom. -s?

                It isn't sporadic. The *-s appears in well-defined phonetic
                environments. The distribution makes sense if we assume conditioned
                loss, but hardly so if we assume wholesale loss with selective
                restoration. Why should *-s have been analogically restored after *-w
                but not after *-j, for example? Why wasn't it restored after nasals?
                There was no phonotactic prohibition against *-Vns# or *-Vis# in PIE.
                And most importantly -- if *-s was lost without exception, what's its
                restoration supposed to have been analogical to?

                >> The o-colour of the
                >> thematic vowel in the nom.sg. *-o-s is also ascribed to the original
                >> voicing of *-z.
                >
                > As I recounted some massages back, and proposed that nom. was not
                > *-oz, but *-oNs.

                I don't understand your proposal, or the motivation behind it.

                > Yes, all that is the standard theory. What do you think of my
                > proposal?

                The idea that, e.g. *wo:kWs comes from *wo: with the *kW and the *s
                restored by analogy? I think I like it less than the standard account.

                Piotr
              • tgpedersen
                ... In the sense of a partitive. Note that the Skr. (thematic) ablative ends in -t. Now of foot is not a good substitute for foot , but pa:t is more
                Message 7 of 7 , Sep 14, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > On 2006-09-14 18:49, tgpedersen wrote:
                  >
                  > >> The actual form of the nom.sg. was *po:ds, phonetically *[po:ts],
                  > >> and simplifications of the final cluster are branch-specific
                  > >> (cf. Skt. pa:t with regular t < *ts).
                  > >
                  > > Or maybe it was an athematic ablative.
                  >
                  > I'm afraid I don't follow. Why should the Skt. nominative be an
                  > ablative, of all things?

                  In the sense of a partitive. Note that the Skr. (thematic) ablative
                  ends in -t. Now "of foot" is not a good substitute for "foot",
                  but pa:t is more recognizable than *pa .


                  > >> The length isn't compensatory, or to be more
                  > >> precise it doesn't compensate for a lost segment.
                  > >
                  > > As I said, and I don't like it.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >> The nom.sg. *-s (but not just any *-s!)
                  > >
                  > > And I don't like that either.
                  >
                  > Sorry, but it happens to be that way.

                  Maybe reasons appear later in the posting.


                  > >> lengthens vowels in the final syllables of
                  > >> consonantal stems irrespective of whether it stays or goes (as in
                  > >> *p&2té:r, etc.). It was lost after *r, *n, *s and *j (probably also
                  > >> after *m and *l), but not e.g. in *wo:kW-s, *k^lo:p-s, *népo:t-s or
                  > >> *dié:u-s, where we find length nevertheless. Jens's hypothesis is
                  that
                  > >> the nom.sg. ending was originally voiced *-z rather than *-s, and
                  that
                  > >> the difference has something to do with the phonetic lengthening
                  > >> (phonemicised upon the merger of *-z with *-s).
                  > >
                  > > How about instead, as I proposed, an exceptionless phonetic rule and
                  > > sporadic restauration of stem auslaut and/or nom. -s?
                  >

                  > It isn't sporadic. The *-s appears in well-defined phonetic
                  > environments. The distribution makes sense if we assume conditioned
                  > loss, but hardly so if we assume wholesale loss with selective
                  > restoration. Why should *-s have been analogically restored
                  > after *-w but not after *-j, for example?

                  Nothing unites those phonemes phonetically, true, so your argument
                  is equally applicable to the classical theory.


                  >Why wasn't it restored after nasals?
                  > There was no phonotactic prohibition against *-Vns# or *-Vis# in PIE.
                  > And most importantly -- if *-s was lost without exception, what's its
                  > restoration supposed to have been analogical to?

                  There's a few details I left out here:
                  Since I think the mi-conjugation was originally some non-finite
                  form, like a verbal noun or a participle, that form must have
                  had subject and object in some form of genetive, ie PPIE *-as
                  and *-am. But that means there must have existed some "old
                  nominative", endingless as in Finnish. (That's the reason for my
                  interest in the Novgorod nominative in *-e) Now it was *that*
                  endingless case I imagined lost all consonants in auslaut.
                  Later, when the mi-conjugation was beginning to be understood
                  as a finite form people wanted to distinguish between the former
                  subjective genitive and a "proper" genitive and did so by moving
                  stress in the latter to the ending (*-ós), the former on the
                  other hand developed such final clusters by contraction that
                  people instead slapped the case mark -s on the 'old nominative'.


                  > >> The o-colour of the
                  > >> thematic vowel in the nom.sg. *-o-s is also ascribed to the original
                  > >> voicing of *-z.
                  > >
                  > > As I recounted some massages back, and proposed that nom. was not
                  > > *-oz, but *-oNs.
                  >
                  > I don't understand your proposal, or the motivation behind it.

                  I can understand PPIE *-ans -> *-ãs -> *-õs -> PIE -os, but can't
                  understand PPIE *-az -> PIE *-os. I don't think it makes sense
                  phonetically. The point of the modification is to make *o appear
                  before resonants, not voiced.


                  > > Yes, all that is the standard theory. What do you think of my
                  > > proposal?
                  >
                  > The idea that, e.g. *wo:kWs comes from *wo: with the *kW and the *s
                  > restored by analogy? I think I like it less than the standard account.
                  >

                  Now it's
                  nominative *wo:,
                  subjective genitive *wokWs,
                  proper genitive *wokWós


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