--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> According to what criteria would the contrast *C1éC2- : *C1eC1óC2-
be "better" than *C1éC2- : *C1éC1oC2-? And how would you account for
the contrast between "strong" singular stems (*C1eC1oC2-) and "weak"
plural stems (*C1eC1C2- or *C1eC1eC2-) with stress on the suffix?
>
> Piotr
>
>
In C1éC1oC2- the second C1 would be in inlaut, subject to all kinds
of Verner-type attacks, with resulting incomprehensibility. As for
the difference between singular and plural, it is the 3rd sing. which
is the most likely to be confused with the corresponding present
(whence the shifted accent might spread to the rest of sing.).
But I should add that Cuny ("Le vocalisme, le consonantisme et la
formation des racines en "nostratique", 1943) agrees with you in that
he claims that only -e-'s fall and that -o- is the result
of "emphase", a term he takes from Arabic(?) consonants and applies
to vowels too. So perhaps I should revise my view and say
that "emphase" was used to separate the two stems(?)
Torsten
Torsten