Apparently Jens is in a I-must-twist-everything-gLeN-says mood
today...
>>> We were talking about the *-e-s of the 2sg of verbs which is
>>> *only* found with thematic stems and therefore must contain the
>>> thematic vowel. That makes nom.sg. *-os and 2sg *-es a minimal
>>> pair,
>>>
>>
>> No it doesn't.
>
> It does synchronically - still that could perhaps be doubted in a
> further diachronic perspective, if that is brought up now.
Wait a darn minute, there. Just to be very clear, I was objecting to
the idea that the *e in *-es derives from a thematic vowel. I wasn't
objecting to the fact that *-os and *-es form a minimal pair in IE
itself. However, this minimal pair doesn't prove a priori that you're
right. You need to prove that *-es shows a thematic vowel but if it
never is found to alternate with *o as you admit, you admit that you
have nothing to base your assumption on to begin with.
We both know that plain ol' *e can also yield *e and since that is
the more straightforward conclusion, it is the optimal one. Ergo,
*-es < *-es until proven otherwise.
> That is only possible if it is *assumed* that the ending of the
> neuter sg. nom.-acc. was not *-d already, but only became *-d by
> change of an older *-t. At best, nothing is known about that; if
> some of the evidence is pertinent it was //d//, cf. Ved. idám, Lat.
> idem, Goth. ita.
Yes, so what? The form in IE was already *id with voiced stop, so
derivatives of it would naturally follow, *d and all.
> If 2sg *-s and 2pl *-te are related in a way parallel to 1sg *-m
> and 1pl *-me, the 2sg *-s specifically reflects a word-final
> development. That would now be expected to lead to *-z and take a
> thematic form *-o-z, primary *-e-t-i, which could be levelled to
> *-o-s, *-o-s-i or *-e-t, *-e-t-i according to your principle of a
> ban on different vowel or different consonant in the primary and
> secondary forms of otherwise identical forms. None of this happened,
> so *-e-s, *-e-s-i never had a voiced consonant.
What's this rant about? It doesn't reflect your views or mine! So
what's the point at all?!
Your account is completely counter-optimal because you've contorted
the order of the events and this forces you to level out forms that
never needed to exist in the first place if only your nonsequitur
were organized properly.
The proper order has always been:
*-t > *-s - IndoTyrrhenian where *-s subsequently
becomes Tyrrhenian *-r
indicative *-i - early Late IE from locative particle *i
allophonic voicing - mid Late IE, all phonemes in final
position except the laryngeals are
voiced
So if you would please not twist my theory anymore and actually
take the time from your afternoon tea to understand it properly, it
works as follows for the 2ps in *-s(i):
Steppe *-t
ITyr *-s (*-t > *-s)
MIE *-s (same as usual)
eLIE *-si/*-s (adoption of indicative)
mLIE *-si/*-s [-si/-z] (final voicing)
IE *-si/*-s
As you can see, there is no need for levelling here. Everything is
perfectly regular. It's also perfectly regular for the plural *-es:
Steppe *-it
ITyr *-es (*-t > *-s)
MIE *-es (same as usual)
eLIE *-es (adoption of indicative)
mLIE *-es [-ez] (final voicing)
IE *-es
Jens:
> Think about it yourself for once:
Think about what? Your erroneous version of my theory? No thanks.
Perhaps you can now glance the above list and understand it better
in proper chronological order.
You've completely misunderstood what I said and are now twisting the
correct order of preIE changes to suit your one-tracked ideology. I
guess for you, it suffices to APPEAR to have disproven a theory that
you don't even bother to accurately paraphrase. You're irrational.
> So that is also wrong.
No, yet again, you're wrong. You've totally misrepresented my opinion
to create a farce you consider a logical rebuttal. Tell me when you're
ready to debate sensibly. Ask me questions about my position, if you
may, so that you don't go off on this kind of pointless rant again
about imaginary viewpoints from imaginary people. It's not constructive
for the Forum to do this.
= gLeN