On Sun, 4 May 2003, aquila_grande wrote:
> I too have discussed with Glen about stem-final vowels.
>
> I agree with Glen in most of his view about the effect of stress
> position, but I think it is to simple.
>
> I too think that the so-called thematic vowels originates from some
> stem-final vowels originating back to the steppe.
>
> The reason I think so, is simply their wide-spread and use in a lot
> of functions. I do not think such an important thing could have
> developed so rapidly as Glen proposes.
I fail to see how this could be valid reason for assigning the language to
a steppe. If steppe here means (pragmatically) PIE, then I agree. The
thematic vowel was definitely present in the protolanguage. I also agree
the th.v. has arisen in stem-final position, for that is where we find it.
Saussure said that already.
> Glen postulates that the thematic wovel of nouns, originates from the
> genitive ending. I think this theory does not work, also because of
> the semantic implication it carries. The only way for such a theory
> to work, is by redefinition of a genitive into a nominative of a
> noun/ajective showing assosiation.
This part of the theory, right or wrong, global or marginal in scope, is
what I *do* understand. There is nothing strange in having a genitive
become an adjective, and having an adj. be substantivized. That could even
be the case with 'wolf'.
>
> For example the noun wlqwos. If Glens theory is right, this word
> originally was the genitive of a noun welq-. Let us asume that "welq-"
> had the meaning "deep forest", and wlqwos (gen) then ment "of the
> deep forest". After the redefinition wlqwos became a noun meaning
> someting like "ting of the deep forest", and later on the word was
> used about the animal wolf.
If the underlying base denoted something to which the wolf belongs, then
of course the wolf be "of (that thing)", and the genitive expressing this
would be open to reanalysis as an adjective characterizing "the one of
(that thing)", and in substantivized use it could simply come to mean
that. By having zero-grade the word wolf is revealed as older than the
ablaut proper, while the substantivization, by accenting the zero-grade,
is revealed to be younger than the ablaut.
> Actually his theory have the following
> implications:
>
> -The thematic ending being in widespread use as an assosiative
> derivational suffixe upon originally athematic stems.
I believe your point is that this requirement is not met. I would say it
is. From the root noun *leuk- 'light' (Lat. lu:x) we have Skt. luca-
'light' (adj.); ordinals are formedd in this way; the to/no-ptc. is based
on agent nouns with -t-/-n- (/-nt-); and vrddhi formations like *deiwo'-s
'god; heavenly' and *ne'wo-s are based on *dyew-/*diw- 'daylight, sky' and
*nu 'now', etc.
>
> -A lot of athematic/thematic pairs with a different, but somewhat
> connected meanings.
Again, I believe we do in fact find this.
>
> Neither of these are observed in any great degree.
I'd say, great enough to be taken seriously. Still, as I have made
explicit, there are other reasons to have doubts. The vowel difference
between the pronominal genitive *-e-s-yo and the nom. in *-o-s points to
an older difference between the two sibilants involved, whereby the
analysis becomes impossible. Also, since there is no connection with the
thematic vowel of verbs in all of this, it is not satisfactory in the
first place. In point of fact, little is required to put it right. Glen's
strange-looking rule of "Suffix Resistance" (if I remember correctly)
making suffixes in *-(C)o- resistant to ablaut loss is quite close to the
observation I think explains it all, viz. that all stem-final vowels are
ablaut-resistant. Glen has apparently overlooked that thematic suffixes
may be a bit longer, an extreme cases being *-mH1no- of the middle
participle. If all stem-final vowels are "thematic vowels", we can account
for the noun/pronoun and the verb by the same set of rules, and if not
only short, but all thematic suffixes leave their thematic vowels immune
to ablaut reduction, we have it all. That a vowel-reducing rule has
restrictions in which the position in the word is a factor is not strange
in itself. I would guess that the very fact that the position before the
flexives is a sheltered one where vowels are not reduced, irrespective of
their accentuation (in the output forms), is trying to tell us something.
It would be constructive to think out theories about what that might be.
Jens