Re: [tied] Nominative: A hybrid view

Hi Jens,

Here my comments to your last message.

> That was who and where. I have repeated it many times, but
> these references will be the easiest ones to follow.

Thank you for the references. I see this list tends to have its own
conventions on some issues. I was unaware of that, but I will
keep it in mind next time I have something to say. I also found
your explanations very useful and clearly formulated (believe me,
a rare case with most of the literature I read). Your theory
sounds logical and generally intriguing, so I think I will try to just
read your publications and see further for myself if I can agree or
not. Not knowing much about possible other theories on the
same issue, I would, as a start, refrain from taking any stance. I
did, however, find your comments very enlightening and I thank
you again.

Since we have *-om in the 1sg and the acc.sg., it is

> clear that /m/ takes -o-; but 2sg has -es, and the nom.sg. has

-os, so it

> ceases to look promising.

Very interesting. I had heard something of the kind from one of
my Latin teachers. He even made parallels with the "ommmm"
used for meditation by the yogi. This is of particular interest to
me, because I have also done classical singing, where many of
these purely phonetic issues arise. An interdisciplinary study
may turn out helpful on the subject. There are many linguists, for
example, who worked with singers on diction and interpretation
and who may have lots of original ideas on the relationship
between vowels and consonants. I can think of one linguist who
worked with Toscanini and used to teach at the Julliard School.
If you find this intriguing, look for something written by Evelina
Colorni. It has nothing to do with comparative linguistics, but it
may give you some ideas.

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 -

That sounds intriguing. It also brings me to the thought such a
prestage of the language could have been influenced by other
languages. Have you tried to look for parallels outside of IE?

> This e/o rule which applies only to the thematic vowel (which

is

> descriptively simply a "vowel in stem-final position", since all

other

> stems end in original consonants) has been accorded little

attention,

> although divergent formulations are not wanting, every

handbook contains

> one that just does not fit the facts.

By the way, I have not read any other theories on the same
subject, so I cannot judge on your theory against all others. On
the other hand, it must be a pity to leave your points out of the
debate.

I

> 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

following

> voiced segment by whatever exact avenue.

That sounds fascinating as a thought. And leads me back to my
comments above on possible overlapping with phonetics, why
not even art.

> 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.

Would you elaborate on that or have you already addressed this
issue previously?

> 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.

Yes, but I find this is often a problem in scientific debate. People
are afraid to ask their questions because they are afraid of
appearing stupid and uninformed. It is a "Catch 22" thing: how
can you be informed if you never asked?

> > I am not sure about Ablative in OCS. I will look it up. I

suspect

> > 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.

I was not trying to say something different, so the army could
spare me for now :-)

If it is an old genitive,

> there is *no* basis for it that has even been suggested as far

as I am

> aware.

I was talking about ablative taking on the endings of genitive. I
never stated the ablative is an old genitive.

Eva