Jens responds to...
>> 1. Syncope on some level MUST exist in Pre-IE
>> ---------------------------------------------
We at least agree. You may reject *pleh-/*plh-/*pelh-
but Piotr seems to suggest *polh-no-. Me confused.
>> It suggests an earlier stress accent, [...]
>
> It does indeed point to an accent of some expiratory
> prominence, but it does not in any way exclude that the
> accent had other properties also, such as tonal height.
No, perhaps not. But efficiency excludes it. Stress is the
likeliest to cause syncope, which is why it is often
believed to have been stress, not tone.
>> It must also be assumed until shown otherwise that Syncope
>> was a single event by way of logical simplicity.
>
> That is not a valid inference. In its simplest form it would
> demand that the vowel loss occurred without an intermediate
> stage, i.e. with full loss from one day to the next with no
> weakening on the way.
It is invalid only if we completely misunderstand my statement.
I meant that there is a single event of syncope (with some
sort of long-term weakening of those disappearing vowels
implied) that caused the zero-grade in IE. Not two, not
three, just one thing only that caused zerograde. When I use
"event", I mean an event that is quite obviously a process
that took a few generations to be completed. This is in
fact accounted for in the present state of my theory but
I haven't gotten into detail about it yet.
>> 2. ALL initial consonant clusters are caused by Syncope
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> The issue between us (Jens and I) apparently involves our
>> different views on what is logically the simplest solution
>> concerning the _extent_ of Syncope. A clash of "simplicities",
>> as it were.
>
> Guilty as charged.
Yet you won't agree that reconstructing initial consonant
clusters in a post-Syncope stage is unnecessarily complex?
I think you do agree, but you'd rather not admit it.
> Was that "everything about IE", and did it show the
> all-pervasive status of "CV(C)"? I didn't see it showed
> anything.
You really want to grind this topic to the ground, don't you.
Wonderful! :)
In the case of your unjust example of *-mhno-, we know
that it is a synthetic composite of *-m- + *-hn- + thematic
vowel. In fact, so too is *-s-men-t and all other more
phonetically complex suffixes I can think of. I think you
gave too and couldn't find much here.
I in no way stated that IE itself cannot tolerate such
mediofinal clusters. I merely stated that the stage previous
(the Mid IE stage) only tolerated a CV(C) syllable structure.
It was only after Syncope that the previous dynamics of
syllabics were destroyed and replaced by a new series of
rules.
Yes, in the end, unless I can think of something awfully
clever, it is all based on the concept of efficiency. It
is more efficient to conceive of a CV(C) structure than
either to propose something more complex without foundation
or, worse yet, to have no phonotactic rules at all and
winging it. It is also simpler to assume that *st in *stex-
or *kw in *kwon-, like other initial clusters that we KNOW
to be a product of syncope, also derive from syncope. In
the case of *genh-, we need not worry because it must
be derived from *k:enh- which when in a completed form
will always yield nothing other than CV(C) syllables such
as 3ps *k:enhe or 1pp *k:enhemes.
Everything you state in contrast can only lead to more
unjustifiably complex ideas. You oppose by having us
believe in a CCVC-preIE without stating why. You would
classify the consonant cluster in *stex- to be different
than what we see with *pd- "foot" and, again, based on
nothing. This is simply an illogical methodology.
> The "ordered language structure" should be the result
> of an unbiased inspection of the facts, not just a dream
> about a maximum simple language structure, as it is here.
Maximum simplicity IS unbiased, otherwise where else do
we start?? Maximum complexity?! I find it easier to
understand "zero" than I can "infinity"... so the less
the better.
> The part of the theory saying that clusters following the
> root vowel have lost a vowel is disproved by the way the
> inflectional accent moves,
Do I need to keep reminding you to stick to INITIAL clusters,
as per the original topic. Medial clusters are possible
in a language with CV(C)-syllables and final clusters are
all the product of suffixing and synthesis.
> So much for its prospects. Need I add that it has been tried
> many times and has failed every time?
Well it can't possibly win if you reject logical simplicity
in favour of... well... what?? Your biased imagination?
= gLeN