Re: [pieml] PIE rhotacism

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 11122
Date: 2001-11-14

A few questions:
 
If *newn can be *newm equally well, what makes you sure that *septm and *dek^m (reconstructed according to similar criteria) had final *-m? It looks like an invitation to opem Pandora's box.
 
There are a few other possible counterexamples, e.g. *h2ag^n/*h2ag^o:n (Gk. aga-, ago:n), where, paradoxically, we find *-r- reflected prevocalically in related derivatives, as in <ageiro:>.
 
If *-n changed into *-r, why did it remain *-n in the vocative of animate nouns, e.g. *ték^son, where in was not protected by a following (pre-PIE) *-s? Where do locatival adverbs like *ud-en come from? Why, on the other hand, do we get collectives or *-r/n- stems in *-o:r (*wedo:r, etc.)? You derive them from *-or-h2 -- why not *-o:n < *-on-h2? Of course analogy can be invoked, operating either way to get the desired output; but it seems you need _massive_ recourse to analogy (which mars the elegance of the phonological account), plus an explanation of why it operated so selectively, generally failing to level out *-r/n- heteroclisy in neuter paradigms.
 
You say that rhotacism is blocked after *m "as in *-men". Of course the _suffix_ *-men and all its ablaut variants have persistent *-n. But is it also true of *-m-en, where *-m is part of the base and the stem-forming suffix is *-en? There are clear traces of *-r/n- heteroclisy in the "winter" etymon.
 
Piotr
 
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
To: pieml@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 1:09 AM
Subject: Re: [pieml] heteroclitiques

The "standard view" has usually been a non-phonological explanation (or, rather, no explanation at all).  Even Nostraticists, for instance, have embraced a variant of what Benveniste says above, in order to link the IE r/n stems to the Uralic genitive in -n.

I have stated my opinion bery clearly in the past.  *-n(C) became *-r(C) in the Auslaut (where C is a stop consonant), except [for obvious phonetical reasons] when the previous consonant was *m (as in *-men).  Of course, a following *-s or *-m (as in the nom./acc. of the animate nouns) blocks the development, which is why only neuters are r/n-heteroclitics.  I know of very few exceptions to the rule (*newn "9" is one, but we can just as well reconstruct *newm instead, on the model of *septm, *dek^m).  Any others?