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

RE: a:-stems

Expand Messages
  • Patrick Ryan
    Miguel, in our discussion of the Vocalic Theory , you mentioned an example of a development that you thought the VT could not explain: specifically, the
    Message 1 of 7 , May 3, 2008
      Miguel, in our discussion of the 'Vocalic Theory', you mentioned an example
      of a development that you thought the VT could not explain:

      specifically, the instrumental singular of -*a-stems, which you set forth as
      follows:

      "

      -y-Ha(:).

      That's hardly satisfactory. We have three morphemes here:
      the thematic vowel (*-o-), the feminine marker *-yeh2- ~
      *-ih2-, and the instrumental ending *-eh1. The combine as
      *-o-yh2-ah1, with colouring of the instrumental ending by
      the *h2 of the feminine.
      "

      I would like to clarify that is what you meant to write because it does not
      correlate with other information I have on this inflection.

      We are talking, I presume, about the -*ia: variant of the *a-stems.

      First, I see no trace of a "thematic vowel". I can find no reference to
      *a-stems having thematic vowels in the materials I have.

      My sources list the instrumental singular of *a:-stems as *Ø.

      You called it -*yH2eH1, which amounts to -*a:.

      Can you clarify this at all?


      ***
    • Brian M. Scott
      ... [...] ... He was talking specifically about the Slavic and Sanskrit a:-stem instrumental singular and the Armenian oblique. You can find the full
      Message 2 of 7 , May 4, 2008
        At 8:26:11 PM on Saturday, May 3, 2008, Patrick Ryan wrote:

        > Miguel, in our discussion of the 'Vocalic Theory', you
        > mentioned an example of a development that you thought the
        > VT could not explain:

        > specifically, the instrumental singular of -*a-stems,
        > which you set forth as follows:

        > "

        > -y-Ha(:).

        > That's hardly satisfactory. We have three morphemes here:
        > the thematic vowel (*-o-), the feminine marker *-yeh2- ~
        > *-ih2-, and the instrumental ending *-eh1. The combine as
        > *-o-yh2-ah1, with colouring of the instrumental ending by
        > the *h2 of the feminine.
        > "

        [...]

        > We are talking, I presume, about the -*ia: variant of the
        > *a-stems.

        He was talking specifically about the Slavic and Sanskrit
        a:-stem instrumental singular and the Armenian oblique. You
        can find the full statement at
        <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/55746>.

        [...]

        > My sources list the instrumental singular of *a:-stems as
        > *Ø.

        You must not have Beekes. Talking about the h2-stems (i.e.,
        a:-stems), he gives the inst. sing. as *-h2eh1 (for
        *-h2-eh1), but adds that the Slav. and Skt. forms are
        different, having been taken over from the pronouns.

        Brian
      • Patrick Ryan
        ... From: Brian M. Scott To: Patrick Ryan Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 2:56 PM Subject: Re: [tied] RE:
        Message 3 of 7 , May 4, 2008
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
          To: "Patrick Ryan" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 2:56 PM
          Subject: Re: [tied] RE: a:-stems


          > At 8:26:11 PM on Saturday, May 3, 2008, Patrick Ryan wrote:
          >
          > > Miguel, in our discussion of the 'Vocalic Theory', you
          > > mentioned an example of a development that you thought the
          > > VT could not explain:
          >
          > > specifically, the instrumental singular of -*a-stems,
          > > which you set forth as follows:
          >
          > > "
          >
          > > -y-Ha(:).
          >
          > > That's hardly satisfactory. We have three morphemes here:
          > > the thematic vowel (*-o-), the feminine marker *-yeh2- ~
          > > *-ih2-, and the instrumental ending *-eh1. The combine as
          > > *-o-yh2-ah1, with colouring of the instrumental ending by
          > > the *h2 of the feminine.
          > > "
          >
          > [...]
          >
          > > We are talking, I presume, about the -*ia: variant of the
          > > *a-stems.
          >
          > He was talking specifically about the Slavic and Sanskrit
          > a:-stem instrumental singular and the Armenian oblique. You
          > can find the full statement at
          > <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/55746>.
          >
          > [...]
          >
          > > My sources list the instrumental singular of *a:-stems as
          > > *Ø.
          >
          > You must not have Beekes. Talking about the h2-stems (i.e.,
          > a:-stems), he gives the inst. sing. as *-h2eh1 (for
          > *-h2-eh1), but adds that the Slav. and Skt. forms are
          > different, having been taken over from the pronouns.
          >
          > Brian


          ***

          Patrick:

          Brian, are you sight-impaired? Do you see the quotation marks around the
          statement to which I was responding?

          I will bring it down from above so you can take a closer look.
          "
          >
          > > -y-Ha(:).
          >
          > > That's hardly satisfactory. We have three morphemes here:
          > > the thematic vowel (*-o-), the feminine marker *-yeh2- ~
          > > *-ih2-, and the instrumental ending *-eh1. The combine as
          > > *-o-yh2-ah1, with colouring of the instrumental ending by
          > > the *h2 of the feminine.
          > > "

          The email you link was NOT what I was responding to at all!!!!

          I was responding to what you now see (hopefully) for the second time.

          And I do not appreciate your _emending_ reality to suit your purposes of
          discreditation.

          Can you read it?

          Do you see the feminine marker "*-yeh2-" in the extract above? Does that
          develop into PIE *-a: OR *-ia:? Put that answer in your reply, will you?

          You do not know what you are talking about at all.

          And take your snideness and cut off your own tongue with it.

          I have Beekes, Lehmann, Brugmann, and will shortly have Szemerényi. In my
          library not the public library. Actually, I have others, also.

          Slavic *a:-stems, etc.? Now you are reading what is not there, and not
          reading what is there.

          If all you can do is 'misunderstand' with the object of slighting me, slight
          someone else. I saw your mathematical logic in action; and it was sorely
          wanting.

          ***
        • Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
          On Sat, 3 May 2008 19:26:11 -0500, Patrick Ryan ... Of course. The declension of the a:-stems is usually reconstructed more or less as follows: Nom *-a: (=
          Message 4 of 7 , May 4, 2008
            On Sat, 3 May 2008 19:26:11 -0500, "Patrick Ryan"
            <proto-language@...> wrote:

            >Miguel, in our discussion of the 'Vocalic Theory', you mentioned an example
            >of a development that you thought the VT could not explain:
            >
            >specifically, the instrumental singular of -*a-stems, which you set forth as
            >follows:
            >
            >-y-Ha(:).
            >
            > That's hardly satisfactory. We have three morphemes here:
            > the thematic vowel (*-o-), the feminine marker *-yeh2- ~
            > *-ih2-, and the instrumental ending *-eh1. The combine as
            > *-o-yh2-ah1, with colouring of the instrumental ending by
            > the *h2 of the feminine.
            >
            >I would like to clarify that is what you meant to write because it does not
            >correlate with other information I have on this inflection.
            >
            >We are talking, I presume, about the -*ia: variant of the *a-stems.
            >
            >First, I see no trace of a "thematic vowel". I can find no reference to
            >*a-stems having thematic vowels in the materials I have.
            >
            >My sources list the instrumental singular of *a:-stems as *Ø.
            >
            >You called it -*yH2eH1, which amounts to -*a:.
            >
            >Can you clarify this at all?

            Of course.

            The declension of the a:-stems is usually reconstructed more
            or less as follows:

            Nom *-a: (= *-eh2)
            Skt. -a:, Lith. -à/-ó-, Slav. -a, Goth. -a/-o:, Grk.
            -e:/-a:, Arm. -0, OIr. -0. Latin is irregular with short -a
            (as in the n.pl.).

            Acc *-a:m (= *-eh2-m)
            Skt. -a:m, Lith. -aN, Slav. -oN, Goth. -a/-o:, Grk.
            -e:n/-a:n, Lat. -am, Arm. -0. Old Irish is irregular with
            -YN (< *-en). Note that *-m is consonantal here and in the
            Apl. (we do not have *-eh2-m., *-eh2-n.s)

            Voc *-a (= *-e[h2])
            Lith. -a, Slav. -o, Grk. -a. The laryngeal coloured the
            vowel before it was dropped. Sankrit -e (*-ai) is irregular
            here, more below.

            Gen *-a:s (= *-eh2-os)
            Skt. (root nouns) -a:s, Lith. -õs(-), Slav. -y, Goth. -o:s,
            OLat. -a:s, Grk. -e:s/-a:s. See below for unexpected Skt.
            -a:ya:s (and perhaps OIr. -Ye (*-ia:s)).

            Dat *-a:i (= *-eh2-ei)
            Skt. (root nouns) -a:i, Lith. -ai, Slav. -ê, Goth. -ai, OIr.
            -Y, Lat. -ae, Grk. -e:i/-a:i, Arm. -i. See below for Skt.
            -a:ya:i.

            Loc *-a:[i] (= *-eh2[-i])
            Lith. -õj-e, Slav. -ê, Lat. -ae, ?Grk. -ai, Arm. -i.
            Sanskrit root nouns in -a: would probably have had -a:m
            (*-a: + -m) if any forms had been attested. For Skt. -a:ya:m
            see below.

            Ins *-a: (= *-eh2-eh1)
            Skt. -a:, Lith. -à, Arm. -aw (*-a:-bhi). For Skt. -aya:,
            Slav. -ojoN, Grk. -ã, Arm. -oj^, see below.

            Plural:

            Nom *-a:s (= *-eh2-es)
            Skt. -a:s, Lith. -os, Goth. -o:s, OIr. -a, OLat. -a:s, Arm.
            -k`.

            Acc *-a:ns (= *-eh2-ns)
            Skt. -a:s, Lith. -às, Slav. -y, Goth. -o:s, OIr. -a, Lat.
            -a:s, Grk. -a:s, -ans, Arm. -s.

            Gen *-a:o:m, *-a:Co:m (= *-eh2-õm)
            Skt. -a:n.a:m/-a:sa:m, Lith. -u~N, Slav. -U, Goth. -o:, OIr.
            -N, Lat. -a:rum, Grk. -õn.

            Dat *-a:Mos (= *-eh2-Mos)
            Skt. -a:bhyas, Lith. -óms, Slav. -amU, Goth. -o:m.

            Loc *-a:su (= *-eh2-su)
            Skt. -a:su, OLith. -osù, Slav. -axU

            Ins *-a:Mis (= *-eh2-Mi[:]s)
            Skt. -a:bhis, Lith. -omìs, Slav. -ami, Arm. -awk`

            Dual:
            NA *-ai (= *-eh2-ih1 ?)
            Skt. e:, Lith. -ì, Slav. -ê, Oir. -Y

            GL *-a:ous (= *-eh2-[H]ou[s] ?)
            Slav. -u. For Skt. -ayo:s, see below.

            DI *-a:Mo: (= *-eh2-Moh3)
            Skt. -a:bhya:m, Lith. -óm/-om~, Slav. -ama.


            The *ih2-stems of the de:vi: type are consonant stems, so
            they originally showed stress alternation between the root
            and the endings as follows:

            Nom *-i: (= *'-ih2)
            Skt. de:vi:

            Acc *-i:m (= *'-ih2-m)
            Skt. de:vi:m

            Voc *-i (= *'-i[h2])
            Skt. de:vi

            Gen *-ya:s (= *-yéh2-os)
            Skt. de:vya:s

            Dat *-ya:i (= *-yéh2-ei)
            Skt. de:vya:i

            Loc *-ya:[i] (= *-yéh2-[i])
            Skt. de:vya:m

            Ins *-ya: (= *-yh2-éh1)
            Skt. de:vya:

            Plural:
            Nom *-i:[e]s (= *'-ih2-es)
            Skt. de:vi:s

            Acc *-i:ns (= *'-ih2-ns)
            Skt. de:vi:s

            Gen *-i:[C]o:m (= *-ih2-ó:m)
            Skt. de:vi:na:m

            Dat *-i:Mos (= *-ih2-Mós)
            Skt. de:vi:bhyas

            Loc *-i:su (= *-ih2-sú)
            Skt. de:vi:s.u

            Ins *-i:Mis (= *-ih2-Mí[:]s)
            Skt. de:vi:bhis

            Dual:
            NA *-i: (= *-ih2-íh1)
            Skt. de:vi:

            GL *-yous (= *-yh2-[H]óu[s])
            Skt. de:vyo:s

            DI *-i:Mo: (= *-ih2-Móh3)
            Skt. de:vi:bha:m


            The stems in *-ih2 are used make feminines of both consonant
            stems (e.g. participles in -a(n)ti:, -us.i:) and thematic
            stems, such as de:vi: (f. of de:vas < *deiw-o-s). The stems
            in *-eh2 are used to make thematic feminines (e.g. the
            adjectives in *-os ~ *-eh2). It would make sense, then, if
            the a:-stems could be analyzed as thematic stems (*-e-) with
            the (athematic) feminine suffix *-ih2 added. The problem of
            the missing *-i- can be resolved by positing a soundlaw that
            deletes the *i after a stressed thematic vowel *-é-. That
            would give:

            Nom *-a: (= *-é-[i]h2)
            Skt. -a:, Lith. -à/-ó-, Slav. -a, Goth. -a/-o:, Grk.
            -e:/-a:, Arm. -0, OIr. -0.

            Acc *-a:m (= *-é-[i]h2-m)
            Skt. -a:m, Lith. -aN, Slav. -oN, Goth. -a/-o:, Grk.
            -e:n/-a:n, Lat. -am, Arm. -0.

            Voc *-oi (= *'-o-i[h2])
            Skt. -e:

            Gen *-oya:s (= *-o-yéh2-os)
            Skt. -a:ya:s, Slav. (pron.) -ojeN, OIr. -Ye (< *-ia:s).

            Dat *-oya:i (= *-o-yéh2-ei)
            Skt. -a:ya:i, Slav. (pron.) -oji.

            Loc *-oya:[i] (= *-o-yéh2[-i])
            Skt. -a:ya:m, Slav. (pron) -oji.

            Ins *-oy[y]a: (= *-o-yh2-éh1)
            Skt. -aya:, Slav. -ojoN, Grk. -ã, Arm. -oj^.
            The -a- in Skt. is short because of the laryngeal in
            *-oyh2ah1. The development -ojja: > -oj^ is regular in
            Armenian (the oblique -oj^ is found in kin, knoj^ "woman",
            and in ija-stems such as t`eli, t`elwoj^). Slavic has added
            -m (*-oj?a: + -m > -ojoN) [for which cf. the Skt. Lsg. and
            DIdu. above, the Grk. dual oblique -oîn mentioned below, and
            the Lith. adjectival Isg. -áN-]. The Greek fossil
            instrumental in -ã (e.g. <kruphã>) cannot represent *-ah2ah1
            > *-a: (which gives an acute in Lithuanian -à), and is
            better explained as contracted from *-oy[h2]ah1.


            Plural:

            Nom *-a:s (= *'-e-[i]h2-es)
            Skt. -a:s, Lith. -os, Goth. -o:s, OIr. -a, OLat. -a:s, Arm.
            -k`.

            Acc *-a:ns (= *'-e-[i]h2-ns)
            Skt. -a:s, Lith. -às, Slav. -y, Goth. -o:s, OIr. -a, Lat.
            -a:s, Grk. -a:s, -ans, Arm. -s.

            Gen *-oi:sõm (= *-o-yh2-s-õ'm)
            Slav. (pron.) -êxU. The forms of the plural are identical
            to those of the masculine. Any intonational differences
            (*-oj-sõm vs. *-o-jh2-sõm) would have been eliminated by
            Meillet's law.

            Dat *-oi:Mos (= *-o-yh2-Mós)
            Slav. (pron.) -êmU

            Loc *-oi:su (= *-o-yh2-sú)
            Slav. (pron.) -êxU

            Ins *-oi:Mi:s (= *-o-yh2-Mi:s)
            Slav. (pron.) -êmi

            Dual:
            NA *-oi: (= *-o-yh2-íh1)
            Skt. e:, Lith. -ì, Slav. -ê, Oir. -Y

            GL *-oyyous (= *-o-yh2-[H]óu[s])
            Skt. -ayo:s, Slav. (pron.) -oju. Cf. also Grk. -oîn (masc. &
            fem.) < *-oj-h3u or *-o-jh2-h3u + -m. The merger of masc.
            pl./du. oblique *-oy- with fem. *-o-yh2- would explain why
            no language distinguishes o- and a:-stems in the dual.

            DI *-oi:Mo: (= *-o-yh2-Móh3)
            Slav. (pron.) -êma.


            We see that Indo-European shows traces of two a:-stem
            paradigms: an archaic one with alternation *-é-h2 ~
            *-o-yéh2- ~ *-o-yh2-', best preserved in Sanskrit and Slavic
            [but with loss of any alternation in stress position], and
            an innovated one with *-eh2- throughout [and columnal
            accentuation on the root or on the thematic *-éh2-], as
            reflected by the traditional reconstruction given at the top
            of this post.


            =======================
            Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
            miguelc@...
          • Brian M. Scott
            ... [...] ... [...] ... I know. It was, however, the one in which Miguel explained in greatest detail the derivation about which you were asking. It is also
            Message 5 of 7 , May 4, 2008
              At 7:06:46 PM on Sunday, May 4, 2008, Patrick Ryan wrote:

              > From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>

              >> At 8:26:11 PM on Saturday, May 3, 2008, Patrick Ryan wrote:

              [...]

              >>> My sources list the instrumental singular of *a:-stems as
              >>> *Ø.

              >> You must not have Beekes. Talking about the h2-stems (i.e.,
              >> a:-stems), he gives the inst. sing. as *-h2eh1 (for
              >> *-h2-eh1), but adds that the Slav. and Skt. forms are
              >> different, having been taken over from the pronouns.

              [...]

              > The email you link was NOT what I was responding to at
              > all!!!!

              I know. It was, however, the one in which Miguel explained
              in greatest detail the derivation about which you were
              asking. It is also the one to which he was referring in
              this exchange with you, which led a couple of posts later to
              the bit that you just quoted and re-quoted:

              >If you think my theory cannot explain something, give me
              >a concrete example, and let us see.

              I already gave a concrete example: the ah2-stem Ins.sg.
              *-ojh2ah1.

              <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/56193>

              [...]

              > I have Beekes, Lehmann, Brugmann, and will shortly have
              > Szemerényi.

              Then in fact you *do* have a source that gives the a:-stem
              instr. sing. as something other than *Ø, since, as I pointed
              out in my previous post, Beekes does so.

              [...]

              > Slavic *a:-stems, etc.? Now you are reading what is not
              > there, and not reading what is there.

              I am doing neither. I simply took the trouble to look up
              the post from which you quoted and trace the thread back to
              find out what Miguel had previously said. Had you done so,
              or had you restrained your tendency to substitute venom for
              substance, you might not have made such a fool of yourself
              (albeit mostly in the bits that I have kindly deleted).

              Brian
            • Patrick Ryan
              ... From: Brian M. Scott To: Patrick Ryan Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 9:18 PM Subject: Re[2]: [tied] RE:
              Message 6 of 7 , May 4, 2008
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
                To: "Patrick Ryan" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 9:18 PM
                Subject: Re[2]: [tied] RE: a:-stems


                > At 7:06:46 PM on Sunday, May 4, 2008, Patrick Ryan wrote:
                >
                > > From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
                >
                > >> At 8:26:11 PM on Saturday, May 3, 2008, Patrick Ryan wrote:
                >
                > [...]
                >
                > >>> My sources list the instrumental singular of *a:-stems as
                > >>> *Ø.
                >
                > >> You must not have Beekes. Talking about the h2-stems (i.e.,
                > >> a:-stems), he gives the inst. sing. as *-h2eh1 (for
                > >> *-h2-eh1), but adds that the Slav. and Skt. forms are
                > >> different, having been taken over from the pronouns.
                >
                > [...]
                >
                > > The email you link was NOT what I was responding to at
                > > all!!!!
                >
                > I know.

                ***

                Patrick:

                Then why in God's name did you link to it?

                ****

                It was, however, the one in which Miguel explained
                > in greatest detail the derivation about which you were
                > asking. It is also the one to which he was referring in
                > this exchange with you, which led a couple of posts later to
                > the bit that you just quoted and re-quoted:
                >
                > >If you think my theory cannot explain something, give me
                > >a concrete example, and let us see.
                >
                > I already gave a concrete example: the ah2-stem Ins.sg.
                > *-ojh2ah1.
                >
                > <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/56193>
                >
                > [...]

                ***

                Patrick:

                Can you not get it through your head that I was talking and asking about
                the -*ia: variation of the *a:-stems. Why is that so difficult for you?

                Nom. -*ia:; Instr. -*ia:

                Tell me how that proves anything.




                > > I have Beekes, Lehmann, Brugmann, and will shortly have
                > > Szemerényi.
                >
                > Then in fact you *do* have a source that gives the a:-stem
                > instr. sing. as something other than *Ø, since, as I pointed
                > out in my previous post, Beekes does so.
                >
                > [...]
                >


                ***

                Patrick:

                I am talking about -*ia: stems. Do I have to call you on the phone to
                explain it?


                ***

                > > Slavic *a:-stems, etc.? Now you are reading what is not
                > > there, and not reading what is there.
                >
                > I am doing neither. I simply took the trouble to look up
                > the post from which you quoted and trace the thread back to
                > find out what Miguel had previously said. Had you done so,
                > or had you restrained your tendency to substitute venom for
                > substance, you might not have made such a fool of yourself
                > (albeit mostly in the bits that I have kindly deleted).
                >
                > Brian

                ***

                Patrick:

                I will go with 'simple'.


                ***
              • fournet.arnaud
                ... From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ... ========= You previously stated that Latin had the weak allophone of alternating words. so it s not
                Message 7 of 7 , May 5, 2008
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <miguelc@...>

                  >>
                  >>You called it -*yH2eH1, which amounts to -*a:.
                  >>
                  >>Can you clarify this at all?
                  >
                  > The declension of the a:-stems is usually reconstructed more
                  > or less as follows:
                  >
                  > Nom *-a: (= *-eh2)
                  > Skt. -a:, Lith. -à/-ó-, Slav. -a, Goth. -a/-o:, Grk.
                  > -e:/-a:, Arm. -0, OIr. -0. Latin is irregular with short -a
                  > (as in the n.pl.).

                  =========
                  You previously stated that Latin had the weak allophone of alternating
                  words.
                  so it's not so irregular ?
                  Arnaud
                  ========
                  >
                  > Acc *-a:m (= *-eh2-m)
                  > Skt. -a:m, Lith. -aN, Slav. -oN, Goth. -a/-o:, Grk.
                  > -e:n/-a:n, Lat. -am, Arm. -0.
                  >Old Irish is irregular with
                  > -YN (< *-en). Note that *-m is consonantal here and in the
                  > Apl. (we do not have *-eh2-m., *-eh2-n.s)

                  =======
                  Western PIE does not accept pre-glottalized phonemes.
                  so H2m was impossible in Celtic (or Italic)
                  No wonder Irish has **eH2m > *em
                  H2 was erased in that position.
                  Regular again ?
                  Arnaud
                  =======
                  >
                  > Voc *-a (= *-e[h2])
                  > Lith. -a, Slav. -o, Grk. -a. The laryngeal coloured the
                  > vowel before it was dropped. Sankrit -e (*-ai) is irregular
                  > here, more below.
                  ========
                  Not so sure
                  Sanscrit (and other Central PIE languages) may have fused :
                  eH2 > a and ez > ay.
                  Might not be irregular.
                  Arnaud
                  =======
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.