Re: [tied] Re: a-Epenthesis: This time its personal

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 enlil@... wrote:

>
> After applying the rules, the only thing left to consider
> seriously is Acrostatic accent. However this pattern is
> so unflawed and regular that it can only have been
> introduced rather late, and in order to alleviate what
> one would have expected to be an unusual alternation of
> accent between two different syllables _within_ a stem.

If the rules were correct and were allowed to work such an alternation
would not be unusual, but regular. Why would polysyllabic roots all choose
to act as if they were monosyllabic?

>
> We can deny *kwon- and claim weakly that it was a "suffixed
> stem" for your convenience, but it doesn't account for every
> other stem that shows a similar pattern as *kwon-, words
> like *glo:us or *nepo:ts, for example, which also require
> final vowels in MIE (*k:alahWa & *nepata).
>
> Are they all "suffixed stems" too? Will you find complex,
> ad hoc ways to dismiss all this evidence out of turn as
> well?

By normal standards a stem like *nepo:t-/*nept- is not a root, but a
sequence of root + suffix. But it is a grey zone, for in many words we
cannot identify the morphological elements. But would we really accept a
root *deng^hWeH2- 'tongue'? And should we classify *septm 'seven' as a
root? The very concept of root makes sense only with words whose structure
is known. It seems you are departing from the unknown. That will lead us
nowhere.

>
>
> > There may however be evidence to indicate that the
> > stem of *k^uon- was not a root, but a suffixed stem.
> > That would be one way of explaining the -o-.
>
> Again, simplicity is logical. There is no motivation to
> explain a self-evident *o.
>

I was making a polite concession, but if you won't have it, disregard it.

>
> >> We don't know any which way so why would you side
> >> with complexity in your own ignorance??
> >
> > I wouldn't if I didn't have evidence, but I do.
>
> I must reiterate the context of your above quote: We
> are talking about consonant clusters. You have no
> evidence regarding consonant clusters. Rather, you
> keep on reinvoking your O-fix decree without any guilt
> of irony. I don't see how the rule explains consonant
> clusters in general like that of *kwon- "dog" or
> *stex- "to stand", let's say. However Penultimate
> Accentuation and Syncope explain what's happened in
> these instances.

What is there to explain? The /st/ of 'stand' will be a given, the /k^w/
of 'dog' either a given cluster or the zero-grade of a sequence with an
underlying vowel that does not surface.


Jens