> > No, the root of the old collective is accented, cf. Gk. húdo:r,
> > levelled from *wéd-/*ud-´.
> No way. The first syllable in the Greek word is reduced. In
> it clearly isn't. This suggests that Greek had reduced the vowel.Why?
> Obviously because it was unaccented.No. All forms of húdo:r have accent on hú-. Why? Because one of them
> This automatically impliespretonic
> *wedó:r with final accentuation. Afterall, now we have a pattern
> whereby *wedó:r > Hittite /witar/ and *wednós > /witenas/ show
> *e becoming /i/. On the other hand, accented *e is reflectedundeniably
> in examples like *esti > /eszi/ where *é becomes /e/, never /i/.In your
> account, neither Hittite /watar/ nor /witar/ would properly reflectI resent this very much!! It is not insane to assume that Hittite
> **wédo:r which demands */wetar/.
> So back to sanity,
> the Greek accent must have been secondarily placedin
> on the first syllable, perhaps by influence of agent nouns ending
> unaccented *-to:r in the nominative.But the word had a paradigm of its own. Why is that not to be
> >> So how anyone can deny the *ó/*e pattern sensibly is beyond me.The
> > Maybe it is. Still, I have explained it in the preceding posting.
> > There is no immediate alternation *ó/e governed by the accent.
> > weak form of the -ó- of the perfect, of the intensive and of theWe do not know that the IE form of 'they eat' had full grade. It
> > reduplicated aorist is zero, not /e/.
> Again, so? There were many patterns of vowel alternations in IE
> going on all at the same time. In the paradigm of *es-, we see
> the reduction of unaccented *e in the plural, hence *?s-énti and
> yet another athematic paradigm such as that of *ed- shows *ed-énti
> without reduction. On a third hand, the noun *?dont- 'tooth' shows
> the original *e/ZERO pattern again!
> The IE ablaut system was not intuitive and one had to learn the
> proper ablaut pattern for any given paradigm or any given
> rule to sift through this madness. So the fact that *o doesn'twhether
> alternate in the above paradigms has no bearing whatsoever on
> *o alternated with *e in *o-grade duratives or the paradigms ofdone
> mobile-accented nouns with *o-vocalism, where it must have surely
> this.I see no evidence that it did that in verbal forms that can be
> Considering the complexity of the ablaut system that IE had, thereabove
> would certainly be a motivation to abolish *ó/*e alternation but it
> persisted in case pairs like *po:dm/*pedos and *wodr/*wednos
> nonetheless. You can't skirt around this. I've already mentioned
> why it's paramount that we reconstruct *wednós as the only possiblepe:dan 'place'
> source of Hittite /witenas/. So this shows conclusively to me among
> other things that the *ó/*e pattern did indeed exist.
> > Greek pédon and péde: have root accent, so does Hitt.
> > but surely one of them had final accent, since we have Skt. padá-m,
> Humurously if /pe:dan/ means "place", it negates your expressed
> that *pedóm meant "footprint" in a previous post!No, it would be sg. 'footprint', coll. 'place' in PIE. Hittite is
> We reconstruct *pedóm in the end to account for /padám/. I wouldlike
> to know the exact context of /pe:dan/ considering otherforms /pieti/
> and /pidi/ (mentioned at http://www.wordgumbo.com/ie/cmp/hitt.htm).has
> I'll have to look this up.
> We also have *yugóm, also proven to have had final accent and it's
> of the same construction as *pedóm. So this all shows that Greek
> screwed around with the original accent and can't be relied onwithout
> getting a confirmation of initial accent from other languages. Wedon't
> see this confirmation in *wedó:r since Hittite reflects the finalaccent.
> We should expect that Greek likewise switched the accent placementBut /-o:r/ is what we get from *unaccented* //-er-H2//. This is a
> in /hudo:r/.