Re: [tied] Laryngeal theory as an unnatural

I actually have a difficulty in believing in both your opinions.

Both are based upon a exagerating belief in rules.


Actually, I think, IE could both have the variants bdos and pedos
simultaineously, and the use of one or the other depended very much
of context, style of speech or personal habits.

I like to make comparisons with modern languages and see what I find
in those, and I do not have to go any further than to my own
language, Norwegian, to find material for my view.

The most common wovel of Norwegian is "e". This "e" can be found in
many grades. Using thw word en - one (indefinit article or numeral)
as an example, you can find

normal grade - en

redused grade - @n (with a schwa)

zero grade n (syllabic n)

Lengthened grade e:n.

But there is not any clear-cut rules for using the one or the other,
apart from saying that the zero grade often occurs in unstressed
positions.

For example "a boy" could be pronounced en gutt - or ngutt. As a
numeral one boy, it is likely to be pronounced e:n gutt.

I dont think the situation was different in IE.

I simply do not believe in absolute rules for when zero grade was
used, and when normal grade.


--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
wrote:

>
> Richard:
> >gLeN, could you please be more polite to Miguel when he fails to

see

> >your point. When you become rude, he becomes pedantic, and useful
> >discussion ceases.
>
> There's a difference between failing to see my point (which I don't
> have a problem with) and repeatedly either failing to understand

what

> I've just said or using complete irrelevancies like his **pk^wos

based

> solely on Armenian to drag the discussion down into senselessness.
> The latter is intolerable and doesn't serve productive debate.
>
>
> >How do you account for the vowelless root morphs in compounds?
>
> As I said repeatedly over and over, the "strengthening" occurs in
> **PARADIGMATIC** alternations! Are compounds extensions of

declensional

> paradigms in your mind? I don't see how roots found in compounds

have

> anything to do with their individual declensional paradigms. The

fact

> that we find *pd- in compounds has nothing to do with the declension
> of *pod- where *pd- is just not found. We have genitive *pedos, not
> **pdos.
>
> So why does Miguel, and even you now, continue asking what is by now
> such a stupid question? Am I being rude because people fail to read?
> So be it. It's tiring to repeat things over and over. Compounds have
> nothing to do with this. Read below.
>
>
> >Are you suggesting that there was a synchronic rule converting e-

grade

> >morphs to zero grade in compounds? Is disbelief in such a rule why
> >Miguel thinks the restoration of a vowel is later than PIE?
>
> I can't speak for Miguel's views because I don't even understand the
> basis for them, like his Pre-IE one-vowel system that continues to
> defy reality.
>
> As for your inquiry about a rule of "converting e-grade morphs to

zero

> grade in compounds", I will state yet again. I theorize that the

opposite

> happened and I call it "paradigmatic strengthening" of the

unstressed

> vowel of Mid IE.
>
> The whole reason for zero-grading in the first place is due to loss

of

> most unstressed vowels in Mid IE occuring both medially and finally.
> This loss, particularly of the final vowels, is the reason for the
> switch from a regular penultimate accentuation to a "mobile" one and
> it is also the reason for zero-grading seen in these compounds.
> Zero-grading is the _normal_ result of the sound changes from Mid IE
> to Late IE.
>
> However, that being so, there were instances where the loss of
> unstressed vowels was resisted. The paradigmatic strengthening rule

is

> the exception to the loss of unstressed vowels in Mid IE.

Therefore, *e

> in *pedos "of the foot" should be seen as the result of

preservation of

> the Mid IE unstressed schwa (written below as *e).
>
> "strengthening"
> MIE *pet: > *pat: > *pad-s& > PIE *po:ts

[nom]

> MIE *pet:ase > *p&t:as > *pedas > PIE *pedos

[gen]

>
> in contrast to lack of strengthening in:
>
> MIE *kewane > *kwan > *kwan-s& > PIE *kwo:ns

[nom]

> MIE *kewenase > *kunas > *kunas > PIE *kunos

[gen]

>
> There was no threat in the latter paradigm of the root becoming
> asyllabic anywhere in the paradigm because the unstressed portion of
> the weak cases, MIE *kewen-, naturally becomes syllabic *kun-.

However,

> in the paradigm of *pod-, the unstressed MIE weak case root *pet:-

would

> have normally become asyllabic **pd-. Since this would cause

obscurity,

> strengthening occured and the schwa was preserved, becoming *e in

Late

> IE.
>
> The same law operates on countless other stems where

asyllabification

> of the root in weak cases would have normally occured, such as the
> paradigm of *wodr "water" (gen *wedn-os) or that of *peku "herd"

(gen

> *pekeu-s).
>
> It doesn't occur in compounds because compounds don't deal with any
> alternations like we see in declensional paradigms. Strengthening

was a way

> of preventing obscurity in the paradigm, not in individual roots

found

> in compounds.
>
> I do sincerely hope that people have read this fully, pondered it

deeply,

> and that they finally understand now because I couldn't bear to

repeat

> myself once further.
>
>
> - gLeN
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus