[tied] Re: Bader's article on *-os(y)o

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:
> .
> >
> > So what's the obsession with making up a new phoneme? Why isn't
> > a category of allophone good enough for you people? Nobody's
> > supporting their opinion with sensible facts of any kind.
> >
> >
> > > No! If the vowels were always different, this minimal pair
> provides
> > > no evidence of allophony! It simple shows that thematic /o/
> and /e/
> > > are different!
> >
> > No, it does show at the very least allophony because the majority
> > pattern is that thematic *-e- becomes *o before a _voiced

segment_.

> > We never see a thematic vowel *o before *dH or *g but always

before

> > a voiced phoneme. However, *s is the only consonant that breaks

the

> > rule.
> >
> > The thematic vowel, btw, has to have been once one and the same
> vowel
> > as in *to-s and *te-syo so there's no logical escape from

accepting

> > that *e/*o < *& (or some vowel of your choice). Surely, *to- is

not

> > a different pronoun from *te- so why the alternation? Because

*tos

> > was once pronounced [toz] and tesyo had unvoiced *s. In that way,
> > *s is now in line with the rest of the pattern.
> >
> > So Jens is justified in using the pattern to surmise a "z".
> However,
> > he _assumes_ that it is a seperate sound from *s rather than

simply

> > an allophone and he does this by decree of his own. Therefore, he
> > would reconstruct *toz and *tesyo. In that sense, he's gone too

far

> > because he hasn't shown that they ARE seperate phonemes.
>
> I must say I am being widely understood quite correctly here which
> is rewarding and rare in itself.
>
> In the real debate we may perhaps be at a stalemate if we go on
> passing the buck and sweeping the problem under the next carpet. I
> find it hard to regard word-final voicing a preferred solution,

but

> who am I to tell?
>
> We know that at one time in the prehistory of PIE the marker of

the

> 2sg and the marker of the nominative acted differently on their
> phonetic environments. The nominative caused lengthening, the 2sg
> did not; the nominative selected preceding thematic vowel *-o- (or
> its prestage) just like voiced segments, while the 2sg ending took

*-

> e- just like voiceless segments.
>
> One possibility is now the one I have suggested by positing nom. *-

z

> as opposed to 2sg *-s. That would cost a phoneme, but that's all.

Is

> that to be avoided at all costs? I can't see why it should be, but
> that is not really the point; the point is whether it reflects the
> truth. So the alternatives should be considered with an open mind,
>
> If the nominative marker was just /-s/, realized with subphonemic
> voicing [-z], the nominative is all right, but then the 2sg ending
> must be given a different form. We would like to posit *-t for

that

> anyway at some point, and it should of course be considered if it
> could still be *-t at this stage. That would of course mean that
> forms in *-d cannot be posited with /-t/ also, nor forms showing
> final *-t. I have no problem accepting *-d for the pronominal

neuter

> a simply /-d/, but there is a clash between 2sg *-s and 3sg *-t
> which cannot both be /-t/. So, do we conjure 3sg *-t into

something

> else too, or do we posit *-s : *-z? I do see indications that the
> 3sg marker was once a cluster /nt/ or rather a unit phoneme /Nt/,
> but I have not ventured to bring that in before now (some might

say

> I have phonemes enough). To my great surprise the distribution of
> the variants of this element (if such it is) seems to be sensitive
> to structural differences which only came about by the working of
> the ablaut (of the "Syncope" brand), so perhaps it does not run as
> deep as I first thought. Then we may have /-s/ : /-t/ : /-Nt/

later

> becoming *-z, *-t, *-Nt which could survive as *-s, *-s, *-t. The
> lengthening and o-selecting processes would then have to be dated

to

> the stage with *-z, *-t, *-Nt.

I think Miguel's analysis would work here - an original contrast
of /-s/ : /-tW/ : /-t/. Would the evidence for *Nt be satisfied by
a rule converting final stops to nasals?

> I do not think English is an adequate parallel here, for English [-
> z] only occurs after originally voiced segments. All three

variants

> [-s], [-z] and [-iz] come from -es which took on voice in cases
> where the environment supported that. To that environment belonged
> the preceding vowel, while in the case of pre-PIE *-z there is

quite

> strong evidence that there was no such vowel present at the

relevant

> time. And yet the nominative sibilant caused lengthening, even

after

> voiceless consonants (*nép-o:t-s, *wó:kW-s). If a special phonetic
> feature is needed for this, it must have been located in the
> sibilant. This all falls into place if there was an independent
> phoneme /z/ at the time.

Did I say standard English? :) Perhaps it's closer to the West
Country ('Saxon' - old and new) change also involving word
initial /s/. For what it's worth, in some people's speech the
alternants are [-z_0], [-z], [-iz], i.e. devoiced [z], not [s].

Richard.