Richard:
Richard:
> There might be some counter-examples from Latin. 2s. _fers_ of
> Latin _fero_ 'carry' and 2s. _vi:s_ of Latin _volo:_ 'wish' come
> to mind. Is there any Szeremenyi lengthening in the 2s to argue
> against it?
But Latin alone isn't IE. The whole point of the phrase "comparative
data" is that we compare the data with _something else_.
Richard:
> If it is an allophone,[...]
Oh here we go...
>[...] there is a phonemic contrast between thematic *e and thematic
>*o,
Non sequitur. The phonemic status of these vowels has no bearing
on the issue of *s and *z. At one time they were the same vowel as
proven by examples such as *to-s/*te-syo. At some point the common
vowel *& split in pronunciation based on the presence or absence of
voicing in the consonant that followed (ie: Schwa Diffusion, via
lengthening before voiced segments as in English). Then the contrast
became phonemic (ie: Schwa Merger, through the merger of *& and &.
to *e and *a respectively). Then *a became *o by Vowel Shift.
I've shown already how this can be possible through allophony alone.
With the thematic nominative and genitive of *to- we can see this
transformation using both the orthography and accompanying more exact
phonetic transcription of the morphemes:
1. mLIE case endings:
them.nom. *t&-s [t&-s]
them.gen. *t&-sya [t&-sya]
2. Final Voicing
them.nom. *t&-s [t&-z]
them.gen. *t&-sya [t&-sya]
3. Schwa Diffusion
them.nom. *t&-s [t&.-z]
them.gen. *t&-sya [t&-sya]
3. Schwa Merger I & II
them.nom. *ta-s [ta-z]
them.gen. *te-sya [te-sya]
4. Vowel Shift
them.nom. *to-s [to-z]
them.gen. *te-syo [te-syo]
As you can see [z] is real enough here, but since the use of [z]
is always as a predictable alternate of *s (always after *o and
certain consonants), it can only ever be called an allophone of *s.
> If we have a phonemic contrast **s ~ **z, then we can assume a single
> thematic vowel, say *&.
No, that's nuts. We can have *& without having a phonemic contrast.
A new phoneme is unnecessary assumption. Look at the above again.
Think about it, don't just glance it and dismiss. Have a coffee,
think for ten minutes on it if you have to.
> What is wrong with this logic?
Everything.
> I do not see how we are going to get 2s. *-es v. nom. s. *-os out
> of one vowel and one consonant until the vowel or the consonant has
> split into two phonemes.
No, I told you. The 2ps *-es is by analogy with *-esi. Whereas, nom.
*-os doesn't ever find itself in medial position so it behaves like
a normal voiced [z]. The final consonant of morphemes who never
are placed in medial position are _always_ voiced. So the inanimate
is always voiced *-d while 3ps *-t is unvoiced because of indicative
*-t-i. Jens "idem" example is bogus because it is a post-IE compound
of /id/ and /-dem/.
> To me it seems entirely plausible that the Nostratic contrast *t ~ *s
> became, in final position, **s ~ **z.
Then you're really far gone because Nostratic would have been spoken
c.15,000 BCE for god's sake. You have to account for 9,000 years of
change first before you can claim this. No one I know of supports the
supposed contrast you claim in Nostratic (I've probably just obliterated
them from my memory as a coping mechanism against the irrational
idea) and sibilantization of *t is commonplace anyways so doubly good
reason to dump your head in cold water. Back to IndoEuropean...
= gLeN