Miguel responds after my quote:
>>It's also unfair to whip out a single form without fully examining
>>how it relates to the rest of the paradigm and the history of that
>>paradigm.
>
>In fairness to Piotr, he did no such thing.
Oh, of course Piotr is very knowledgeable and has mentioned the
*history* of the paradigm but not the *HISTORY*, that is, the
logical PreIE state of affairs given what we know of IE. I mean,
we have a whole bunch of IE declensional forms, it would seem
(eg: *wednos, *wedenos, *udnos... just for the genitive singular
alone). I don't see the flaw in supposing that some of these forms
date back farther than others. So, which one, if any, are original?
This needs to be addressed. I pick *wednos as original here since
it is the only one that conforms perfectly to the PA Rule. The
form *wedenos appears to be affected by the locative *weden(i)
since there is no motivation for a two strengthened unstressed
*e's in the word.
So, now to the locatives... which one is most original? We must
ask this question before using it as a high card against the
*-n>*-r sound change. We can't just assume for convenience sake
that *weden(i)/*uden is as old as such a change.
>> gen.pl *wet:en-�ne
>
>I'm sure you must have your reasons for reconstructing *n in the
>gen.pl...
This quarrel is irrelevant to the PA Rule and to our heteroclitic
shift. Yes, I have my reasons.
First Miguel says:
>NA **w�:da:n **wad�:n
>G **wa:d�na:s **wada:n�s
>[...]
Then we supplies some flawed rules:
>After zero-grade, r > n, a: > o, a > e ...:
>
>NA **w�dor **ud�r
>G **wed�nos **uden�s
So, *a: becomes *o only when you feel like it, Miguel?!
Apparently the genitive **udenes has changed *a: to *e in the
second syllable and **wedenos has changed *a: to *e in the first syllable
but that's somehow okay?? You are severly confused.
Further, *n becomes *r and not vice versa as written above. Perhaps
toking up is not a good thing to do before posting ;)
>NA *w�dr *ud�:r
>G *w�dnos *ud�n(o)s
>Ab *w�dnot *ud�not
>AbI *w�dneh1 *ud�neh1, *udn�h1
>D *w�dnei *ud�nei
>L *w�dni *ud�ni
Very imaginative and you get a full "10" for ad-hoc-ness but I fail
to see why *wedo:r, being a collective form of *wodr (< *wedor-x),
wouldn't have simply shared the same paradigm as *wodr.
Now let's compare. I theorize a general accent-final endingless
locative, after the change from *-n to *-r, as the source of *uden
which would serve to explain other forms as well (including many
adverbs). You simply make up a single paradigm out of the blue and
then contradict your own sound laws. You're making yourself into
a caricature, Miguel, rather than considering for a moment that
your rules are not sufficient nor efficient in explaining earlier
stages of IE.
- love gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp