From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 14071
Date: 2002-07-18
>On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:I gave my analyis of the vrki:s inflection below.
>
>> >
>[Jens:]
>>I believe the underlying forms are here based on nothing
>> but wishful >thinking. I see no evidence that a:-stems (made from
>> thematic stems) and >"i:-stems" (made from athematic stems) are
>> identical i underlying >structure.
>>
>[Miguel:]
>> In my view, they have. The feminine suffix was **-ih2. The pertinent
>> soundlaws are:
>>
>> 1) [stressed]
>> **í > in open syllable: *yé
>> > in closed syllable: *íC1#, *íC1C2 (at least for C1 = *h2)
>
>[JER:] But accented í stays that way; it is the stem part of the vrki:s
>inflection;
>it is accented in Caland forms of the type Skt. rjí-s'van-,The Caland forms are worth a whole thread of their own. Suffice it to
>Gk. argí-pous where the compositional variant of -ró- is -í-.
>> 2) [unstressed]OK.
>> **i > *y
>
>[JER:] OK
>>
>> 3) ["svarita-lengthened"]
>> **i: > *ye:
>
>[JER:] I know of no evidence. The type ma:terie:s must have the suffix
>*-yeH2- with regular lengthening before the nominative marker, this
>yielding IE *-ye:H2-s with absence of coloration. I agree with Mayrhofer
>that the reason it did not become **-yek-s (or *-yak-s) is that laryngeal
>hardening (before the nominative sibilant) did not work after a long
>vowel.
>> 4) [absorption by thematic vowel]I have of course considered the counter-evidence of the optative and
>> **%'i > *% > *e ~ *o, according to the voicing of the next segment.
>
>[JER:] Assuming % means e/o, again I see no evidence. Are you talking
>about *-e/o- + *-iH2- yielding *-e-H2- (> long a-stems)? Other y's do not
>do this, thus the postthematic form of the optative whose full-grade form
>is /-yeH1-/, i.e. also /-yeH-/, is *-o-yH1- + endings. The ntr.du. og
>o-stems is *-o-yH1. There is very little support from within the language
>itself.
>> For athematic nouns, we have proterodynamic (de:vi:-type):I plan to give a new and full account of my "svarita lengthening rule"
>>
>> N.sg.
>> A) <light root> : **'-i:h2 > *'-ye:h2
>> B) <heavy root> : **'-ih2 > *'-yh2
>>
>> cf. Gothic band-i (heavy root), sun-ja (light root), Lith. -e: and
>> Lat. -e:s feminines. Elsewhere unstressed *-ye:h2 was reduced to
>> *-yeh2 and further to *-ih2 > *-i: (i.e. the same development as for
>> stressed *-íh2) or *-ja: (*a:/*ja: as *o/*jo).
>
>[JER:] A rule differentiating posttonic /-iH2/ into *-i:H2 and *-iH2
>depending on the complexity of the preceding root segment is without any
>foundation that I know of.
>> Thematic:I've always found that extremely unconvincing. My solution is so much
>> N.sg. **-%'-ih2 > **-%'h2 > *-eh2 > *-a:
>> but V. **'-%-ih2 > *-oi(h2)
>>
>> Oblique:
>> A) **-%'-ih2-a:s > *-éh2os > *-á:s
>> B) **-%-íh2-a:s > *-oyéh2os > *-oyá:s
>> C) **-%-ih2-ás > *-oyh2ás > *-oyyás
>>
>> Type (B) underlies the Sanskrit oblique forms:
>> G. **-oya:s > -a:ya:s
>> DL. **-oya:i > -a:yai (L. -a:ya:m)
>>
>> Type (C) is found mainly in the end-stressed instrumental (Arm. also
>> dative?):
>> Sanskrit:
>> I. **-o-yh2-át > *-oyh2áh1 > *-oyya: > -aya: (no Brugmann lengthening)
>> Slavic:
>> I. **-oyh2áh1 + -m > *-oj(j)a:m > -ojo~
>> Armenian:
>> fem. obl. *-oyyV(:)(C) > -oj^
>>
>> Elsewhere we have type (A).
>
>[JER:] You are inventing rules and types of PIE just to suit a single
>language, and only a single inflectional type of that language. That falls
>flat on its face if the -y-'s of the IIr. a:-inflection are regarded as
>analogical, i.e. as part of endings that were adjusted to the other
>feminine type, which had gen. in -ya:s, dat. in -yai, instr. in -iya:. If
>you add that to -aH- (or *-a:-) you get precisely -a:ya:s, -a:yai, -aya:.
>The Arm. form in -oj^ is locative, commonly explained as a sandhi variantNot so. -oj^ appears as the GDL(Ab) of kin "woman", an eh2-stem, and
>of the locative particle *-dhi; it does not turn up in the inflection of
>old a-stems, but has its place in the "ea"-stems which are properly old
>neuter io-stems.
>> [Jens:]Why *must*?
>> >Give me a rule that explains the coming and going of -p- in IE,
>> >not Sanskrit alone, and I'll take it under advisement.
>>
>[Miguel:]
>> The causative suffix is in origin the verb *ey-e-ti (Hitt. iyami "ich
>> mache", píjami "schicke hin", uijami "sicke her"). I don't know why
>> Sanskrit chose the variant with preverb *p(e)- to make the causative
>> of roots ending in a laryngeal (and a few others).
>
>[JER:] But 'make; send' must be the verb corresponding to Gk. hí:e:mi,
>i.e. IE *H1yeH1-.
>> [Jens:]Yes, I agree that -io- represents a double thematic vowel (older than
>> >Greek épion is no
>> >more secondary than Greek aorists at large, for the 3pl would have been
>> >*pH3i-ént with that structure in any case.
>>
>[Miguel:]
>> The point is that é in *pH3i-ént is not the thematic vowel, which I
>> believe would have absorbed the *y.
>
>[JER:] the type is found in, e.g., Skt. syáti 'binds', dyáti 'binds',
>chyáti 'cuts', all without that absorbtion. Do you deny the existence of
>io-stems? They must be very embarrassing to you, for they look very much
>like thematic derivatives from thematic stems, i.e. "-o- + -o-" > -io-,
>accented *-ío-, as in Ved. mitrá- => mitría-. That does not support either
>absorption or a change of í to yé very well. It does support, on the other
>hand, the time-honoured rule of reduction of the thematic vowel to /i/
>when not accented, followed by my rule of initial accent: *meytló- + -ó- >
>*mytlió- > *mytlío- > *mitlío-, the last steps of which are younger than
>the Schwundablaut that put the unaccented root into the zero-grade.