Re: [tied] Re: Monovocalism: sequel

enlil@... wrote:

>
> Yes, yes, but I'm only going to mention the general pattern so as to
> not drown poor Exu in a confusing rant about ALL possibilities. IE's
> *i is analysed as a syllabic consonant just like *m, *n, *r and *l.
> That's all. And as for *i being potentially 'full-grade', that's only
> possible if you redefine what 'full-grade' means. Afaik, the term
> requires the presence of at least *e or *o to be called full-grade.

That would be a silly and circular definition. Full grade is whatever we find in an accented syllable which we have no reason to believe has ever been anything but accented (such as *ís, *ím, where there's not even anywhere else for the accent to go).

> Miguel:
> > In particular, the strong forms of the anaphoric pronoun (*ís, *ím)
> > are not the zero grade of anything.
>
> Maybe not in the last stage of IE itself, but *i- must still be the
> product of a reduced *ei

Well, it isn't.

>, and we find a related oblique *e used to
> referto time and space.

Ah, so now you've admitted to the existence of a vocalic morpheme...

>In fact, most pronouns show zero-grading.
> That's the norm it seems. This makes sense considering that they are typically
> lacking accent in a sentence

It doesn't make any sense at all. Accented pronouns are typically accented, and there typically are _separate_ enclitic forms for use without accent. The nominative of personal pronouns in particular is *always* stressed, has no encltic forms, and is used exclusively for emphasis in the sentence (PIE being a pro-drop language).

> > The dative *-é, and, at least in Hittite, the allative *-ó.
>
> Since Hittite is not IE

Actually, it is. Please learn when to use "IE" and when to use "PIE".

> You have a pesky habit of reinventing IE and making up your own
> concoctions. In mainstream IE, we reconstruct *-ei or *-i...

No we don't. The PIE dative is never reconstructed as *-i by anyone who knows what they're talking about.

> Please note
> the semivocalic _consonant_. If there should be what appears to be
> *-e in Hittite

How hard can it be to remember what the dative is in Hittite, or, failing that, to look it up?
The Hittite dative is -i (merged with the locative).

The reconstruction *-e has nothing to do with Hittite per se. It follows from the observation that the dative originally consists of two separate morphemes: *-é and *-i, parallel to the locative (*-0 and *-i), and some varieties of the ablative (*-ot-i > Hitt. -az) and perhaps the instrumental (*-et-i).

>, it's probably because of the application of the locative
> *e (*?e) as a suffix or an irregular reduction.

The locative is neither *e nor *?e in PIE. It's *-i.