Re: [tied] Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:

>
> Jens:
> > I don't know, I wasn't asked. However I can observe that the

sonant

> > is sometimes missing (surely this cannot be news to you):
>
> I don't know, I guess I always assumed that these disappearances
> were post-IE. I've never seen this alternation of *-o:r/*o:
> reconstructed in IE itself. I'm sure it would if there was damn
> good reason to, so I presume there isn't.

Then why does Brugmann bracket the r of *p&té:(r) and *k^uo:(n)? And
why does Pokorny do the same? Because they saw no good reason? You
are styling ignorance as a virtue.

> > There appears to be no rationale for loss or preservation of the
> > stem-final sonants in the nominatives, so PIE must have offered

the

> > opportunity for the daughter languages to inherit both forms.

That

> > amount to a protolanguage with variation, either erratic or

somehow

> > regulated.
>
> Interesting but I'm not sure how this could make sense of anything.
> We'd need some sensible rule to understand why such a variation
> existed... _if_ it existed. Sounds like more wild conjecture.

Make a better one, then, but please don't do it by closing your eyes
to the facts. And do not demand that I close mine, I won't be
obeying your orders.

> However, given your examples, maybe it's worth looking into the
> possible, murky rules of IE sandhi.

Wise choice. You could begin by reading about in Brugmann's
Grundriss. The relevant volumes I,1 (pp. 346, 426) and I,2 (p. 883)
are now available in the revised editon, Berlin/Leipzig 1897, which
has been reprinted a number of times. Look for Satzphonetik,
Indogermanische Urzeit, and follow the internal references.

> If it were sandhi then, it
> still doesn't mean that the stem lacks these sonants in the
> nominative, but rather that in colloquial speech they were omitted
> based on a context and rules external to the stem as it would be
> found in isolation.

Pray reveal to us the basis of your insight.

> Nominative loss as a result of sandhi would be outside of the topic
> of nominative loss within the stem itself. */Tod ?so:nts estne/?

No, that's not necessarily true (and "that" is not masculine), we
have to keep all possibilities open as long as we know too little to
be able to control them.