Re: [tied] The sectors of ablaut.

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Sat, 10 May 2003 00:31:25 +0200 (CEST), Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
> <jer@...> wrote:
>
> >To get over the stalemate in the quarrel over ablaut I shall have

to

> >point out a number of things I do not find occasion to say if I

only

> >respond to the posts of others.
> >
> >It appears to be fundamental that the three main parts of the IE
> >inflected word have their own limits of vocalism:
> >
> >Roots may have any vocalism, long or short; while by far the most

common

> >root vowel is /e/ or /e:/, also /a/, /a:/, /o/ and /o:/ appear to

be

> >represented. (I am not so sure about the long /u:/ of 'mouse'

anymore.)

>
> Are you unsure about the length or about the u-ness?
> What about /i/ and /i:/?

I find the analysis *mu:s- (as opposed to *muHs-) insufficiently
motivated. The lack of ablaut could be secondary. I know of no sure
roots with basic vocalisms /i/ or /u/ (long or short).

>
> >Suffixes only have /e/ (and what comes from that source).
>
> Well, isn't that begging the question? What we observe is that
> suffixes can have at least e, o, e:, o:, i, u, and zero.

You know what I mean: /e:, o, o:/ can all be derived from /e/ by
rules that are not too difficult to specify; /i, u/ are from the
consonants /y, w/ in all cases I know we can analyze.

>
> >Endings may have any vocalism, but only short: /e, o, a, i, u/.
>
> I'm trying to think of an ending with /a/... What are you

referring

> to?

The allative of Hittite, and fossilized adverbs retaining this in
other languages: Gk. aná, katá, khamá-i; Gk. par-á : Lat. pr-a-e.

> >Thus there was no accent shift in the
> >strong cases in *-z, -Ø, *-m, MF.du. *-h3, nom.pl. *-zs, acc.pl.

*-ms,

> >ntr.du. *-yh1, or coll. *-h2, nor in the active sg. verbal

endings *-m,

> >*-s, *-t, while there was accent movement before all the other

endings

> >which formed syllables.
>
> I'm not sure if the ntr.du. is originally a strong ending. In
> isolated where analogy is unlikely, we see for instance
> *(d)wi-(d)k^m.t-íh1 "twenty".

I'll take that under consideration. If it is a weak case it will
mean the /i/ is from an old vowel here, and the principle will
remain.

>
> > A stem ending in the thematic vowel could be further extended

by

> >suffixes and so did not always occupy final position of the full

stem.

> >The thematic vowel rule also worked in the position before added
> >suffixes, as opt. *bhér-o-yh1-t, but stative *séne-h1- 'be old'.

Thus,

> >these stem-final or suffix-final vowels must have retained their
> >special feature down to a time following the main ablaut

reduction by

> >which /-eh1-/ was reduced to /-h1-/ because not accented and then
> >selected /-e-/ as the form of the preceding thematic vowel.
>
> But the o-stem endings select *o before a subsequently reduced

vowel

> (*-o-esyo > *-osyo). Why not analyze *sen-éh1-?

No, I would rank *-osyo among the cases of generalization of *-o- in
o-stem substantives, i.e. on a par with sbst. instr. *-o-h1 : pron.
*-e-h1. The e-form is seen in pronouns like Goth. this, hwis; OCS
c^eso, OPr. stesse; Lat. eius, Welsh eidd-aw; Gk. té-o, Av. cahiia.
This points to *esyo, *tesyo, *kWesyo.

*séno-s is one of the best-known thematic stems of IE. If you don't
like it, take albe:re. The point (first noted by Watkins) is that
both thematic and athematic stems form statives in *-eh1-, which can
then be analyzed as *-e-h1- for them., and as *-C-eh1- for
athematics. That this is true is shown by the corresponding present
which (in my own analysis) have the forms *-e-h1-yé/ó- and *-h1-yé/ó-
respectively.

Jens