Re: [tied] Qualitative ablaut - case as closed as a black hole is b

On Sun, 03 Dec 2000 23:07:57 , "Glen Gordon"
<glengordon01@...> wrote:

>Anyways, I am paying attention - Not sure if you are. please follow this
>line of reasoning: If *nomn is pluralized via vrddhi, there is no need in
>adding *-x (ie: Sanskrit /-i/) to it, is there? That would be redundant
>double pluralisation!

It *would* not be, it *is*.

>Now, even if there are two seperate plural forms in IE for *nómn (*nomn-x
>and *nemo:n ?), surely you must accept that the vrddhi-collective, whose
>reasons for the irregular vowel alternations are not immediately obvious in
>Late IE, is an _earlier_ form than the immediately understood process of
>suffixing *-x to the singular stem, yes?

I don't see why one of the two has to be earlier.

>>There were two ways of forming collectives in PIE, adding *-h2, or
>>lengthening of the suffix vowel. In Ved. <na:ma:> < *Hno(:)mo:n we
>>have lengthening, in Lat. nomina we have *-h2. In Skt. <na:ma:ni> <
>>*Hno(:)mo:onh2, we have both.
>
>Right, but what is/are the original IE form(s), Miguel? This is what I'm
>trying to get at with you. Obviously you now feel that Sanskrit /na:ma:ni/
>is not a secure proof at all for IE *nomn-x like you were pretending
>earlier! You're now admitting that Latin and Sanskrit do not derive from a
>_single_ IE form with attested *-x! Yet you want to sell Sanskrit /-i/ as
>direct proof of the existence of *-x after IE consonant when clearly some
>instances of /-i/ are later derivations, like in this example! Huh?? You're
>not making sense.

Perfect sense. Skt. -i in the collective derives from *-h2, whether
it's added to a vrddhied form (nama:n-i) or directly to the stem
(adant-i). If you think that the lengthening in the vrddhied forms
was caused by a *-x (*-h2) that disappeared, while it did not
disappear elsewhere (surfacing as -i in Skt. and -a elsewhere), then
it's up to you to prove your case. I'm listening.

>>>Miguel stated: You told me, but you failed thus far to give any >>examples
>>>or any precise rules; So what's your view on the >>poimé:n/dáimo:n thing?
>>>I've just given you a long list of precise >>rules, Miguel.
>>
>>About precisely how unstressed *e gives *o? I don't think so.
>
>[...]
>What exactly are you confused about still? You aren't expressing your doubts
>clearly.

Well, let me try again. I'm not going to wade through previous posts,
so I'll rely on memory. If I'm not mistaken, you started out by
saying that PIE *o was the result of Tonal-pPIE **e ([@]) when
unstressed (> *e when stressed). Then I objected that we also find *o
a lot in stressed position, even in monosyllables. Then you said that
*a too could give *o, which you had failed to mention earlier. So
then I asked you for *your* examples of *e -> *o due to lack of stress
(the canonical examples being <poimé:n> and <dáimo:n>, where we indeed
have stressed -mén- vs. unstressed -mon-, but that's "classical" *e,
not your schwa).

>>>I have provided some of these main preIE rules like "MidIE >>penultimate
>>>accent"
>>
>>So how does that explain protero-dynamic vs. hystero-dymanic vs.
>>static declensions?
>

[snip]

>PD stems appear to all be anciently vowel-final (either *-i or *-u)

There are also PD -s, -n ~ -r/-n stems (mainly neuters). I suppose
your infix -e- takes of that. But what about -i-/-u- HD stems, then?

>The penultimate accent similarily explains the behaviour of HD stems just as
>well. One need only add the pre-existing final vowels to regularize the
>accent to penultimate.

Well, something along those lines would seem to be the answer. There
are of course a lot of details to be filled in. For instance,
Rasmussen has proposed that the static inflections can be explained by
an initial long vowel (HD **CV:CV'R(V)-, **CV:CVRV's(V)), which
attracted the accent after the working of zero grade and the
shortening of unstressed long vowels (**CéCR, **CéCRs).

>>*g^ was most certainly not caused by *e. I, and many others with me,
>>consider it to be a separate PIE phoneme.
>
>Who exactly?

To name a few, Brugmann, Beekes (with reservations), Gamqrelidze and
Ivanov, Pedersen, Rasmussen, Illich-Svitych, Watkins.

An interesting argument from G & I: as is known, PIE does not allow
roots of the shape TET, DHEDH, PEP, BHEBH etc. But we do find such
roots as *kek^ (weasel) and *k^ekw (shit). Calvert Watkins (in Ramat
& Ramat) mentions the Luwian evidence I thought I didn't have:
"Compare Luv. za-/zi- "this" < *k^o-/*k^i- (Lith. s^ìs, Arm. -s),
zi:yar(i) "lies" < *k^ej-or- (Ved. s'áye < *k^ej-oj-); kis^a(i)-
"comb" < *kes- (OCS c^eso~), kars^- "cut" (Gk. a-kerse-kóme:s "with
unshorn locks"); kui- "who" < *kwi- (Lat. quis), -kuwa < *-kwe (Lat.
-que). See Melchert (1987)." [i.e. *k -> k, *k^ -> z, *kw -> kw].

>Your buddies at the bar? Patrick Ryan, perhaps? Bomhard is a
>fairly level-headed Nostraticist and his opinion bluntly contradicts yours.
>He states on page 54 of "Indo-European and the Nostratic Hypothesis" that
>"Also during this stage of development [a late Phonemic Pitch Stage of IE] -
>or perhaps even earlier - the velars developed palatalized allophones before
>front vowels and *y."
>
>This is a surprisingly uncontraversial, majority view for a Nostraticist,
>btw.
>
>Miguel, are you aware of Sanskrit evidence of *e/*o ablaut via the presence
>or absence of velar satemisation??

I think you're seriously confused. The law of the palatals (if that's
what you mean) has nothing to do with the question at hand.

>>>3) There is no order to the development of **a:
>>>which is free to become either a short OR
>>>long vowel without solid explanation.
>>
>>I have given the explanation: stress.
>>[...]
>>What I have claimed is that in certain circumstances (e.g. after *y-
>>as in *ye:kwrt, *maybe*, as in the case of re:g^, before *g^), **a:
>>develops into *e: instead of *o.
>
>Stress makes long vowels SHORT??!

*Lack* of stress. **wa:dn -> **wodr, *wa:dná:s -> *wednós. For the
first couple of centuries, read the *o as in Sanskrit, always long.

Then all *o's (there being no short *o) became phonologically short.
In Indo-Iranian, in open vowels, they remained phonetically long long
enough to merge with the new laryngeal and vrddhi long vowels. That's
Brugmann's law explained.

>>That in any case. E.g. Slavic c^asU < *ke:s-.
>
>You forgot the palatal diacritic. I'm sure you mean *k^e:s-.

Tsk, tsk.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...