Re: [tied] Re: IE lexical accent

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, tgpedersen wrote:

>
> > I am also at a loss to explain the lack of accentual movement in
> the
> > strong forms of the perfect: why do the endings *-H2e, *-tH2e, *-e
> not
> > cause the accent to move? The vowels of these endings act as if
> they just
> > are not there. Are they old separate words, or are they secondary
> vowel
> > insertions before a lost consonant, or are they old consonants
> themselves?
> > I find this part of the grammar completely intransparent. For the
> same
> > reason it would also be wrong to use this point against the theory
> or even
> > to use this enigmatic point as the point of departure for the
> formulation
> > of the rules at work.

Interesting and well-argued presentation of an important problem. Sounds
familiar too. No objections.

> Alscher (I've mentioned his name to you once)
>
> http://members.pgv.at/homer/INDOEURO/afroasia.htm
>
> thinks the IE perfect suffixes are identical to the Semitic
> preterite prefixes, in whatever way that has come about.

Does he now? Well, he also has a crush on Trubetzkoy, one of my distinct
allergies. The doctrine of identity does not include position, I take it.

Jens