>>Yes! A person by the name of Hans-Joachim Alscher
>
>Alscher's rule is actually: -CnT > -Cr(T), which is not quite my rule
>-n > -r, -m(V)n > -m(V)n, nor quite Martinet's rule -n > -r, -nt > >-n.
Yes, I know but it is similar enough to our wonderful rule to bear mention.
The *T is unnecessary of course. I personally get the impression that IE *r
was pronounced with a light tap (not rolled), meaning that there was little
difference between *n, *l and *r aside from nasality and duration of contact
between tongue and palate. We agree on the Heteroclitic Rule as long as we
are clear that it does not affect enclitics. Things are looking up.
The order of this should be:
- *-n > *-r in "full" words (nouns/verbs, but not *en)
- loss of final vowels,
penultimate accent becomes "mobile"
- inanimate *l- and *r-stems given
a new heteroclitic declension by analogy
So, the genitive of *sexwl "sun" was transformed into *sxw�ns, not by sound
change but by analogy (earlier MidIE *s�xwl/*sexw�lse). There certainly was
never *-r/*-n after this root (cf. Etruscan /usil/). The analogical *-n-
eventually ends up in thematic declension too.
Joao:
>Can This r/n alternation explain the Latin marcus and Germanic >*hamaraz,
>"hammer", Slav kamy "stone", Greek akmon "stone". *kom-en- >/ -er- ? [...]
>The alternance *kam-/*akm- can be a contamination of root *kam- with >ak^-
>"sharp". Heaven (heofon) < *himin- is stated as from *kem- "to >cover", but
>it's relation with akmon is not impossible: stone vault = >heaven vault.
I agree with Miguel that this cannot be explained with the Heteroclitic Rule
and yet I agree with Joao that this is not a word originally derived from
*ak^- and that it might better be derived from *kem-.
I might offer a possible course of events for this word:
NOMINATIVE GENITIVE
**k�ml **kem�lse <- Late Mid IE
**k�ml **kem�ls <- heavy stress, vowel loss
**k�ml **kem�ls <- *a > *o
**k�ml **kem�ns <- analogical heteroclitic
From here, **k�ml (*k^eml) "sky" became deified and turned into the animate
word *kem�:l (just like the word "sun"). The heteroclitic declension
followed and hence genitive *kemoln�s. This odd genitive caused confusion in
the animate declension, producing variants of the original *-l stem,
terminating with *-n or *-r. Voila!
The meaning of "hammer" is secondary because of the very ancient association
of hammers/axes with sky gods. Only when the word was associated with sharp
tools would there be a folk-etymology with *ak^-. "Sky" would be the
original meaning of the word which is why it was transferred into the
animate declension in the first place - There are no tool deities :) The
word could either denote the actual sky (inanimate) or the god of the sky
(animate), just like the alternate animate and inanimate forms for "sun"
(*sexwl/*sxwe:l)
The only problem is that I can't account for the *-l if inanimate **keml
comes from *kem- (*k^em-) "to cover". The word would make grammatical sense
in MidIE if it were *k�mn (< *k�m-an with the common inanimate agent suffix
*-an seen elsewhere) but this doesn't explain *l.
>>Hmm... Doesn't Toch.A. have -ma"s & -c for 1pp & 2pp? This looks >>awfully
>>assymetrical unless maybe something got replaced in the 2pp >>as opposed
>>to the 1pp. In which case, we shouldn't expect TochB -cer >>to be directly
>>reflective of IE. What is the 1pp in TochB?
>
>-m(o)
Hmmm. It doesn't look promising when we have TochA -ma"s/-c and TochB
-mo/-cer. The 1pp and 2pp are different forms (blech!). We should expect the
1pp and 2pp to rhyme like it does in IE (even if it is *-men/*-ten). Does
TochB 2pp rhyme with 3pp, I wonder? What is the 3pp in TochB? Is it -er
maybe? Or is there a plural marker -er (-cer <? protoTocharian *-c(-er))?
Concerning Miguel's *su:nus/*su:yos "son" < **suH-n^- (?)
>Actually, just because of a general Homeric/Attic bias. The
>Proto-Greek form was an u-stem *<su:yus>: Lac. <huius>, Ion./Att.
><huius>. <Huios> is secondary (dissimilation and thematization).
The *-n- in *suxnu- is a verbal infix seen a million times before
(*sux-n-u-) while *-yo- is another very common ending derived from the
relative pronoun *yos. It is attached to many nouns. There is no **-yu-
ending and even so, where else is /huios/ attested? Your **n^ only attempts
to dethrone the obvious for something haphazard. In fact, this particular
**n^ "solution" doesn't solve anything that can't be solved quite adequately
by traditional theories.
Further, there is no need to assume that *nem- and *em- are related just
because they may hold similar meanings. There is no **yem- like you expect
with your "dual-state" rule. The very fact that *n, *y AND *? are ALL
supposed to derive from a single **n^ without any precise conditioning
factors layed out means that your theory is too complacent about
contradiction to be taken seriously. And I wouldn't use dialectal
convergeance to conceal the irregularities and unexpected phonemes, either.
Joao:
>I don't know if there's PIE names for 4 seasons, or 3 or 2, but
>these names occurs in many languages.
I say three because of mythological associations and colour symbolisms
(white=winter, red/yellow=fall, green/blue=spring). Spring and summer are
easily confusable if both involve the warm days of the year.
- gLeN
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
http://explorer.msn.com