Re: [tied] Nominative: A hybrid view

From: fortuna11111
Message: 22295
Date: 2003-05-27


thank you very much for the explanations. I skimmed through
your message and I think it will need some careful attention, so I
will print it out and take it home (I am a poor student who has no
pc at home...). I will get back to you as soon as I can.

Thanks again.


--- In, Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
<jer@...> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 May 2003, fortuna11111 wrote:
> > Okay Jens, back to my questions, since you wanted to
answer :-)
> >
> > > > They are listed as separate phonemes.
> > >
> > > Yes; what I mean is that /d/ and /t/ were even opposed to
> > other in
> > > word-final position in PIE, or at least in that prestage of it in
> > which
> > > the "thematic vowel" was split up into /e/ and /o/ depending
on the
> > > phonetic character of the following segment (being /o/
> > [+voice],
> > > /e/ elsewhere).
> >
> > Question: who says this and where? Or if it is your theory,
what is
> > it based on. I just have a problem with mere statements, I
> > want to know where they come from. Nothing new to
science, or to
> > journalism, for that matter.
> The short answer: I say this. I have presented it in a chapter of
my book
> Studien zur Morphophonemik der indogermanischen
Grundsprache, Innsbruck
> 1989. A shorter statement is contained in my contribution to the
> Fachtagung (Leiden): Beekes, Lubotsky, Weitenberg (eds.),
> und Relative Chronologie, Akten der VIII. Fachtagung der
Idg.Gs., publ.
> Innsbruck 1992.
> That was who and where. I have repeated it many times, but
> these references will be the easiest ones to follow.
> Now for why: The "thematic vowel" is a special subfield of IE
ablaut. The
> stem-final vowel of thematic verbs and of pronouns alternate in
a way all
> its own, being now /e/, now /o/, never zero like the other IE
vowels. Its
> alternation is independent of the accent: we have *-om, *-es,
*-et, *-ome,
> *-ete, *-ont no matter where the accent is (and no matter how
the ablaut
> grade of the rest of the word is), cf. e.g. the types *bher-e/o-
with root
> accent and the type in *-sk^e/o- which is accented on the suffix.
It is
> common knowledge that the decisive element in the selection
of the two
> phenotypes -e- and -o- is the phonetic character of the
following segment;
> that is not my discovery, Saussure and Hirt agreed on that (and
> else). But it seems to have been too much for the entire field to
pin down
> the decisive factor. Since we have *-om in the 1sg and the, it is
> clear that /m/ takes -o-; but 2sg has -es, and the has
-os, so it
> ceases to look promising. Still, all the rest looks fine, even finer
> anybody had apparently realized:
> If we sift the material and discard analogical forms as
> we may be left with a core of conclusive facts. The o-stem
nouns have
> apparently given up the alternation e/o, having almost only -o-,
> for the word-final vocative in *-e and the a-coloured fem./coll. in
> (which apparently cannot be based on *-o-h2, but must reflect
> *-e-h2 as shown by Beekes in the article with the funny title
H2O in Die
> Sprache 18 from 1972). But the pronoun has retained much of
the old
> alternation and in this agrees very precisely with the verb. What
we find
> is this:
> We have -e- in
> *-e (vocative domine, imperative lege)
> *-es(-) (gen. *tes-yo 'des', 2sg *bhere-s)
> *-et(-) (3sg *bheret, mid. *-eto, 2pl *-ete)
> *-eh1 (instr. *te-h1 in Goth /the:/, denominative stative
> *-eh2 > *-ah2 coll./fem. *new-ah2; also 1sg.mid. *bher-a-h2-i.
> We have -o- in
> *-o-e > *-o:(w) (du. *to:[w] 'those two')
> *-o-m (acc. *to-m, 1sg *bhero-m, 1pl *bhero-me, 1pl.mid.
> mid.ptc. *bhero-mh1no-)
> *-o-nt (3pl *bhero-nt, act.ptc. *bhero-nt-s)
> *-o-w- (1du *bhero-we, 1du.mid. *bhero-wedh&2)
> *-o-y(-) ( *to-y 'they', ntr.du. *to-yh1, opt. *bhero-yh1-t)
> *-o-r (impersonal *bhero-r in OIr. -berar; local adv. *to-r in Goth.
> /thar/ 'there')
> *-o-d (ntr. *to-d 'that');
> less certain is the PIE status of:
> *-o-dh- (local adv. like Gk. pothi 'where, hothi 'there where')
> *-o-bh- (local adv.: Hitt. kuwapi 'where')
> In these two lists it is very easy to see that -e- is not followed by
> anything voiced, while -o- constantly is. I guess this is so plain
that it
> cannot be fortuitous, but must be the active factor. Even so,
there is a
> little worm in the apple, viz. the in *-os. I do not take
the easy
> way out and shout analogy, for it is also the form of pronouns
(rel. *yo-s
> in Gk. ho-s, Phryg. io-s, Celtiberian io-s). Instead I take a closer
> at the two s-morphemes. It is well known that the sigmatic
nominative have
> a set of strange allomorphs, while the same is not seen in the
2sg of the
> verb. Specifically, the lengthening seen in the animate
(as Skt.
> dyau-s) has no counterpart in the 2sg (2sg ipf. a-s'rno-s). I
agree with
> Szemerenyi in ascribing the lengthening effect to the
nominative marker,
> but I find no evidence of the same effect in the 2sg marker,
although both
> surface af /-s/. I can therefore assume that the two s's were
> different from each other. And since the nom. marker makes
the thematic
> vowel take the form -o- I assume that the nominate marker
was a voiced *-z
> at the time of the change in the thematic vowel, while that of the
2sg was
> not voiced since it takes -e-. Simplicissimus just asks: if they
> different anyway, why not use that to our advantage?
Phonetically I see no
> reason to assume that the voiced pronunciation of the
nominative marker
> was still retained in PIE, so I suggest that the merger of *-s
and *-z
> into *-s should be placed in some prestage of the
protolanguage we reach
> by comparative reconstruction - but within the time span
covered by some
> of the operations of internal reconstruction we can make on the
basis of
> the already-reconstructed PIE.
> This e/o rule which applies only to the thematic vowel (which
> descriptively simply a "vowel in stem-final position", since all
> stems end in original consonants) has been accorded little
> although divergent formulations are not wanting, every
handbook contains
> one that just does not fit the facts. I refrain from pronouncing
> opinion of the individual alternatives: the writers are my friends,
> I'd like to keep it that way.
> On this list, my e/o rule has been accorded very wide
acceptance. We
> disagree a bit over the phonetic rationale; some say it's a
quantum of
> lengthening, and that a somewhat longer e became o; I am
now more in
> favour of a tonal interpretation, thereby approaching the old
stand taken
> by Hirt. It *is* at least an increase in sonority induced by the
> voiced segment by whatever exact avenue.
> That the e/o rule works only for the thematic vowel is a
problem of its
> own. I'll leave it be for the moment.
> >
> > The two phonemes, however, *are* neutralized in
> > > Indo-Iranian and Italic.
> >
> > Examples? In what way are they neutralized?
> Word-final *-t has become -d in Italic (Osc. kum-bened
'convenit', Old
> Latin esed 'esset'), and so had *-d. In Avestan both yield the
> dental (transcribed by underlined t, according to Gauthiot
representing an
> unexploded dental stop), in Old Persian they are both lost, and
> Sanskrit they both surface as /d/ before a voiced initial in the
> word, and as /t/ elsewhere.
> > It is often forgotten, even in historical
> > > grammars, that Sanskrit is incapable of showing whether a
> > stop was
> > > voiced or voiceless, since the opposition is neutralized in
> > sandhi
> > > positions.
> >
> > That should be so, assuming what you said above about
> > is true or at least a point of scientific agreement.
> I think it's true, but it's not agreed upon. I object when
> evidence is being construed to disprove it. And that was what
was going to
> happen in case the ablative ending got accepted as "*-od".
> [...]
> > If *-d and *-t are opposed to each other
> > > in PIE, there is a phonemic contrast even in that position.
> >
> > Okay, to make it clear, what do you mean by opposed? Do
you mean
> > exclusive? And *in what position* exclusive?
> That both exist and are not confused.
> >
> > A form like
> > > *kWod > PGmc. *hwat (Germ. was) would appear to reflect
the old
> > voicing,
> > > if in a funny way.
> >
> > How does it reflect it? How can you draw a conclusion from
just one
> > example reflecting something? It could be so coincidentially.
> > get me wrong, but in the area of IE linguistics it is full of
> > who are simply being awfully creative. One has to be careful.
> You do right in asking directly. Much nonsense has been
handed down
> because teachers did not address questions, and the next
questions were
> not even asked. Am I overly naive in seeing a difference in
> between Goth. thata with a particle added to *tod as opposed
to the reflex
> of *-ti in the prs. <bairith>? Or between Skt. id-am 'it' as
opposed to
> prs. bharat-i, ipv. bharat-u? I take this to indicate that *-d and *-t
> not merged. I could be wrong about that, but not so easily
about the point
> I really need to be right, viz. that there was a contrast between
*-d and
> *-t at some time in the prehistory of PIE.
> [... On the tematic ablative]
> > > It apparently also matches the of o-stems in
> > > Lith. vil~ko, OCS vlUka.
> >
> > I am not sure about Ablative in OCS. I will look it up. I
> > it is just another borrowed genitive ending, as in Sanskrit.
> You are potentially up against quite an army here. The BSl.
gen. also
> covers the syntactic functions of the ablative. If it is an old
> there is *no* basis for it that has even been suggested as far
as I am
> aware.
> >
> > Recently the Celtiberian form has been found to
> > > be -uz (perhaps with a fricative d at the end).
> >
> > Who and where?
> By Francisco Villar. The quick reference is an Innsbrucker
Vortrag (the
> thin white papers). As always, it's in Meier-Bruegger's
> F.V.: A new interpretation of Celtiberian grammar. Innsbruck
> >
> > It may aso be identical
> > > with the Greek adverb type seen in kalo:~s 'beautifully'
> > for the
> > > -s which may have been taken over from other
stem-classes which
> > used the
> > > genitive form also as ablative).
> >
> > You can have an -os in all possible other cases. As with the
> > stems in Sanskrit, which have an ablative coinciding with
> > (which was -os/-es in PIE). You take a single word in Greek
and draw
> > theories from it? I just don't get it, sorry.
> The ablative is being used as an adverb in many cases.
Common opinion is
> divided on the question whether the Gk. adverbs in -o:s reflect
> instrumental or old ablatives. Since the instr. has acute tone in
> Lithuanian, the circumflex of the endstressed adverbs can be
> directly from the form of the ablative. In both cases, the IE form
> *-oH1 or *-oat (vel sim.) need the addition of an *-s to produce
the Greek
> form. If it matters where the *-s comes from I find it easier to
> that it comes from another ablative form. And all other stem
classes had
> ablatives ending in *-s.
> >
> > And another important point is, I am usually very busy, while
> > volume of the list is challenging. So I do not always have
time to
> > go in depth with questions and comments, etc. In such
cases I just
> > say: le'me read it somewhere to save us both the time. If I
> > agree in the end, I will tell ya. That was the portion of
> > Hochenglisch for today :-)
> We're in the same boat here. Thank you for your time.
> Jens