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

The centum-word

Expand Messages
  • Glen Gordon
    ... Oy veh. What a huge question... Yes, I do remain opposed to **-nC *-rC because I only support a *-n *-r change, but you are missing something big here
    Message 1 of 5 , Apr 3, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Miguel:
      >I thought you were opposed to **-nC > *-rC. In which case, you >really
      >mean *wat:r/*wet:ar + -x ?

      Oy veh. What a huge question... Yes, I do remain opposed to **-nC > *-rC
      because I only support a *-n>*-r change, but you are missing something big
      here that I must have discovered while you were sleeping.

      My _current_ view is that final *-n simply became *-r (between 6000 and 5500
      BCE) just before the loss of final vowels. This was probably a small
      dialectal change starting first in the western edge of the Mid IE language
      area gradually spreading eastward (but you can take that idea or leave it).
      Another western change would be the uvularisation of velars, possibly caused
      by Tyrrhenian areal influence (Piotr mentioned this earlier to explain the
      satem dialects better and boy am I lovin' it!).

      Here are examples of words and their hypothesized changes during this stage
      of Mid IE where final *n became *r:

      [*-n > *-r] [vwl loss]
      -----------------------------------
      *w�t:n "water" > *w�t:r > *w�t:r (*w�dr)
      *kW�tWn "four" > *kW�tWr > *kW�tWr (*kWetw�res)
      BUT *kew�ne "dog" > *kew�ne > *kew�n (*k^wo:n)

      Medial *-n- simply never underwent this change to *r, unless corrupted by
      analogical changes. This change occured in absolute _final_ position,
      affecting the inanimate suffix which was *-n at one time (accented form:
      *-�n-), in order to produce our familiar and productive *-r in slippery
      words like "liver", "water", "blood", etc. Any inanimate stem with a
      previous *-n such as above was still not affected in the
      non-nominoaccusative cases, however. Cases like the genitive where *n was
      never final due to the added endings, continued the archaic *n. Example:

      *w�t:n "water" > *w�t:r
      BUT *wet:�nse "of the water" > *wet:�nse (!!)

      I hope yous can see the accents. At any rate, this best demonstrates the
      origin of the irregularities one sees in this heteroclitic declension.

      Now, in the case of collective suffixes or any other more secondary
      suffixing outside of the declensional paradigm, the *n was NOT retained. For
      the collective of *wat:n, we are simply adding an optional suffix *-xe
      (later *-x or that devilish lengthening) to the bare nomino-accusative stem.
      Due to the strict penultimate accent of that time prior to vowel loss, we
      may only reconstruct *wet:�n-xe with accent on the _second_ syllable. (Also
      note the *a/*e rule: When the accent is off of a stem with accented *-a-, it
      becomes *-e- (schwa))

      When *wat:n became *wat:r, the collective form followed suit as *wet:�r-xe.
      The reason is that the collective suffix, while used occasionally, was never
      a systematic and regular part of the declension. You see, the formation of
      the collective form for *wat:r depended solely on the singular
      nomino-accusative stem form and not via some remembered paradigm as with
      *wet:�nse "of the water".

      As for "dog", if you're still confused about the development of *k^wo:n,
      here's the picture:

      *kew�ne(-se) > *k^ew�n(-s) > *k^wan-s > *k^won-s > *k^wo:n

      In this case, *n would never have become *r because it was in medial
      position at the time of the *n>*r change, and not because of the animate
      nominative *-s.

      Oh and finally, before you get wise, I must explain the animate *-�r actor
      suffix (or whatchamacallit) which I still claim to derive from *-�ne (and
      not the expected **-�re). In Early IE, this suffix *-ene was associated with
      the corresponding and phonetically similar inanimate suffix *-an (Mid IE
      syllabic *-n). When the inanimate suffix *-n became *-r in Mid IE, the
      animate suffix *-ene irregularly underwent the same change to *-er(e) to
      continue the phonetic association between the two suffixes...

      ... but only in the western "heteroclitic" dialects of Mid IE.

      I suspect now that in some more eastern dialects, these suffixes had
      remained as *-�na for animate and the ol' *-n for inanimate for some time
      yet. Later, western and eastern IE dialects converged and thus, both sets
      from either dialects were used in the same language that we now know and
      love as "Common IE".

      Gee... and I still have to explain the many uses of early *e/*a ablaut! Any
      more good questions, Miguel? :)

      - gLeN

      _________________________________________________________________________
      Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
    • Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
      On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 07:51:40 , Glen Gordon ... This makes no sense: either your *-xe was _not_ univerbated, and thus didn t stop the auslaut law *-n *-r
      Message 2 of 5 , Apr 3, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 07:51:40 , "Glen Gordon"
        <glengordon01@...> wrote:

        >Now, in the case of collective suffixes or any other more secondary
        >suffixing outside of the declensional paradigm, the *n was NOT retained. For
        >the collective of *wat:n, we are simply adding an optional suffix *-xe
        >(later *-x or that devilish lengthening) to the bare nomino-accusative stem.
        >Due to the strict penultimate accent of that time prior to vowel loss, we
        >may only reconstruct *wet:án-xe with accent on the _second_ syllable. (Also
        >note the *a/*e rule: When the accent is off of a stem with accented *-a-, it
        >becomes *-e- (schwa))
        >
        >When *wat:n became *wat:r, the collective form followed suit as *wet:ár-xe.
        >The reason is that the collective suffix, while used occasionally, was never
        >a systematic and regular part of the declension.

        This makes no sense: either your *-xe was _not_ univerbated, and thus
        didn't stop the auslaut law *-n > *-r nor made the stress shift; or it
        _was_ univerbated, caused the stress to shift and prevented *-n > *-r.
        You can't have a convenient combination of these.

        =======================
        Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
        mcv@...
      • Glen Gordon
        ... Argh, Miguel! How you frustrate me sometimes :P Try to be calm and think this through before zealously dismissing what I say. I know you re very fond of
        Message 3 of 5 , Apr 4, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Miguel:
          >This makes no sense: either your *-xe was _not_ univerbated, and thus
          >didn't stop the auslaut law *-n > *-r nor made the stress shift; or >it
          >_was_ univerbated, caused the stress to shift and prevented *-n > >*-r. You
          >can't have a convenient combination of these.

          Argh, Miguel! How you frustrate me sometimes :P Try to be calm and think
          this through before zealously dismissing what I say. I know you're very fond
          of your own theories but this does make sense - you're just not seeing the
          whole picture. You are focusing so obsessively at this single heteroclitic
          phenomenon that you fail to step back to see the whole language at work.

          The collective suffix *-xe did not stop the *-n > *-r law, no. So I guess
          that means it was "non-univerbated" in your words. We might make a
          distinction then in writing between the genitive *wet:an�se with its *-�se
          fully incorporated into the word and *wet:�r-xe with the ending *-xe
          attached to a bare stem. The stress shift was still retained because it was
          part of the automatic "penultimate accent" thing that you've apparently
          forgotten. Only when the final vowels disappeared was the penultimate accent
          destroyed, replaced by a mobile accent like in English. Stress can only be
          on the second-to-last syllable in this stage of the game and since
          *wet:�r-xe constitutes one word, the stress is automatically on *-ar-. Later
          the final vowels drop, producing *wet:�rx (later *wedorx > *wedo:r). The
          *n>*r change appears to occur before the
          "loss-of-final-vowel/penultimate-to-mobile-accent" change.

          Anyways, there are only two steps in order to create a collective with *-xe
          out of an inanimate in Mid IE:

          1. add *-xe to the bare nomino-accusative
          2. move the stress over a la penultimate

          Nothing here about changing the stem ending. The bare nomino-accusative for
          *-n words came to end in *-r so the collective (which afterall is
          nomino-accusative itself!) followed suit because it was dependant on the
          _nomino-accusative_ form, as are all other possible forms with derivational
          suffixes. The genitive case is NOT dependant on the nomino-accusative form -
          it came to have its own oblique stem in *-n-.

          So in all, the nomino-accusative (including collectives and all other
          derivations) is based on the *r-stem; the genitive (and all other
          non-nomino-accusative cases) is based on the *n-stem. They originally used
          the same stem but the auslaut split things in two, whereupon the *n-stem was
          given an _oblique_ meaning. As I say, collectives were not part of the
          declensional system. They are derivational processes that behave differently
          from cases. Why? Because cases are part of a larger system called
          "declension"; collectives are not. Collectives may be lumped up into an
          unordered pile with all the other derivations possible in the IE language
          that aren't part of an established paradigm.

          I hope this clarifies. I'm not sure how to explain it concisely.

          Now food for thought:
          ---------------------
          Why on earth would the nomino-accusative collective *wet:ar-xe be
          automatically given an oblique marker (*-n-), Miguel?? This is why the
          collective is *wet:ar-xe and not **wet:an-xe. Besides, *wat:r and *wet:ar-xe
          mean the same thing in the end, and so again, why should they use different
          stems? Why should *wat:r change to *-n for every derivation possible in IE
          grammar? Should *wat:r change to *wat:n- for every suffix attached to it??
          Why, then *wat:r would have immense pressure to end in *-n, wouldn't it! But
          it didn't because this pressure didn't exist.

          It is far more normal for a language to use the expected forms (with *-r),
          except in a _smaller_ number of exceptions like the oblique (with *-n),
          rather than having exceptions running amok everywhere, more numerous than
          the regularities!

          PS: I'm having trouble seeing your essay, which is why I'm so far
          uncharacteristically silent. Is it a Microsoft Word or Works document? I'll
          have to experiment to find out. I get a whole bunch of boxes in the
          document. Curse that Bill Gates!


          Sincerely,
          your trusty linguistic sidekick,
          gLeN

          _________________________________________________________________________
          Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
        • Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
          On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 04:51:43 , Glen Gordon ... Something like a penultimate accent rule works on the *word* level. So do Aulautgesetze. Either the *xe was
          Message 4 of 5 , Apr 4, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 04:51:43 , "Glen Gordon"
            <glengordon01@...> wrote:

            >Miguel:
            >>This makes no sense: either your *-xe was _not_ univerbated, and thus
            >>didn't stop the auslaut law *-n > *-r nor made the stress shift; or >it
            >>_was_ univerbated, caused the stress to shift and prevented *-n > >*-r. You
            >>can't have a convenient combination of these.
            >
            >The collective suffix *-xe did not stop the *-n > *-r law, no. So I guess
            >that means it was "non-univerbated" in your words. We might make a
            >distinction then in writing between the genitive *wet:anése with its *-ése
            >fully incorporated into the word and *wet:ár-xe with the ending *-xe
            >attached to a bare stem. The stress shift was still retained because it was
            >part of the automatic "penultimate accent" thing that you've apparently
            >forgotten.

            Something like a "penultimate accent" rule works on the *word* level.
            So do Aulautgesetze. Either the *xe was a separate word (and did not
            affect *-n > *-r, nor the accent), or it was fused (and left *-n- be
            *-n-, while affecting the position of the accent). That's all there
            is to it. What you want is simply not possible, no matter how many
            words you spend trying to defend it.

            The simple fact is that a collective form such as *wedo[:]r never had
            a suffix *-h2. It's a different collective formation altogether,
            using Ablaut only (pattern A with short root vowel, B with long root
            vowel):

            A. **dák^@mt ~ **d@k^á:mt(V) > *dék^m(h1) ~ *dk^ómt
            B. **wa:d@n ~ **wadá:n(V) > *wódr ~ *wedó:r

            The collective suffix *-h2 could be added secondarily later, as in
            *dk^omt-h2, which is what Piotr meant when he compared it with E.
            <child-r-en>.

            =======================
            Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
            mcv@...
          • Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
            On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 04:51:43 , Glen Gordon ... It s Word 97 for Windows. Problem is I used the Arial Unicode font. I thought I d upload it to the website,
            Message 5 of 5 , Apr 4, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 04:51:43 , "Glen Gordon"
              <glengordon01@...> wrote:

              >PS: I'm having trouble seeing your essay, which is why I'm so far
              >uncharacteristically silent. Is it a Microsoft Word or Works document? I'll
              >have to experiment to find out. I get a whole bunch of boxes in the
              >document. Curse that Bill Gates!

              It's Word 97 for Windows. Problem is I used the Arial Unicode font. I
              thought I'd upload it to the website, but it's 23M (and I'm only
              allowed 15M). Then I told Word to save the file with embedded
              TrueType fonts (but only for the characters actually used). I already
              had a suspicion that this wouldn't work, but it was worth a try.
              Someone on another list has offered to convert the .docs to Adobe
              Acrobat (.pdf) format (I don't have Acrobat Writer myself). I'd try
              to convert it to HTML myself, but I'm not feeling too well ('flu-ish).

              I'll keep you posted.

              =======================
              Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
              mcv@...
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.