[tied] Re: IE lexical accent

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:

> Jens:
> > Sounds frustrating when a complete recast is called for.
>
> Even more frustrating when learning and advancement is discouraged
> by those cantankerous individuals that hold on to the same beliefs
> for years on end.
>
>
> > Words like *méne 'of me', *téwe 'of thee', *pénkWe 'five' would

not

> > have three consonants even without their final vowels;
>
> No. So what? It makes no difference because I'm the one that

accepts

> a two-vowel system. MIE *-a disappears after Syncope but *-e

doesn't.

> MIE *-e remains eLIE *-a [&] which becomes *-e in final position

anyway,

> as we find with bare thematic stems in the vocative.
>
>
> > *nókWt-s 'night' and participles in *-ont-s have three final

consonants

> > despite the anti-clipping pseudorule;
>
> 1. The origin of *nokWt- is transparent, being a stative of a verb
> stem *nekW-. The original meaning was "darkness, dusk, evening".
> The absence of Szemerenyi Lengthening and simple etymology shows
> us that the word postdates Syncope.
>
> 2. Participial *-ont- is a composite suffix consisting of *-on- and
> *-t-. It's dated to the Late IE period as are most other

composite

> suffixes. It too has no Szemerenyi Lengthening and so can't

date to

> that time period.
>
> 3. S-aorists like *de:ikst are denominal in origin. They show
> Szemerenyi Lengthening and do indeed date to Syncope but only

as noun

> stems. Before the sigmatic aorist developped it's likely that

root

> aorists were used.
>
> 4. Feminines like *gWén-ex have no bearing to Anatolian-inclusive

IE

> which is known to have distinguished two genders: animate and
> inanimate. No feminine. Even so, accusative *gWenxm is CVCCV!
>
> 5. Sorry, *?nóhW-mn and *g^énH1-mn end in vowels too. What the

hell are

> you getting at here?!
>
>
> > Your socalled "a-Epenthesis" is nothing but a stolen object.
>
> If information cannot be taken from other sources without being

called

> stolen, we all may as well give up studying anything in fear.
>
>
> > It is true that some nominal stems which show -o(:)- in their

strong

> > forms have -e- in their weak cases. However, the collateral type

with

> > strong-case -e:- which is parallelled by the verb shows, in my

opinion,

> > that the underlying vowel is a long /-e:-/ for both alternants.
>
> Yes, "in your opinion" (aka "my idle assumption"). There is no *e:

in

> either forms so you have to dream it up in order to get your

results.

> What I do is _accept_ that *o and *e are both there and that one

of them

> is original. Picking the nominative form with *o as original is

the only

> sensible choice. However, we can see that *o < *a (via Vowel

Shift),

> otherwise many things aren't as phonetically motivated such as
> a-Epenthesis and the thematic vowel alternations.
>
> As for these examples not showing *i-vocalism, there's an obvious
> reason for it. My views on syllabification reflect the known

morphology

> of these words such that the syllable boundary is placed at the

same place

> as the union of stem and desinence. So *pedos = /ped.'os/ and *pedi
> /ped.'i/. Since monosyllabic nominal stems are always CVC, we can

never

> expect *i reflected here because we will never have an open

syllable.

>
>
> > The lexical accent is unaffected by the shape of the flexive and

only

> > concerns the stem, but the mobility of the inflexive accent is

caused by

> > the attraction exerted by an underlyingly syllabic flexive.
>
> The previous post demonstrates that you're incorrect and you fail

to

> explain the entire proterodynamic paradigm as well as purposely

ignore

> sensible etymologies to these asyllabic desinences that anyone else
> can see are of demonstrative origin.
>
>
> > This will be modified (further down) by the possible acceptance

of

> > subphonemic mini-vowels
>
> This can't work for IE. Sorry. You may get away with it in EA or
> Uralic, if that indeed is what you mean to convey when you weave
> a silly long string of morphemes together without any vowels in
> between.
>
>
> > Also *ud-n-ós would come out of **wed-n-ós with shift of the

accent

> > from the root to the ending due to its vowel. And *wéd-n-s would

come

> > out of **we:d-n-ós if that was the old form.
>
> This comes out of that, if this, but not that... yadayada. This

should

> not be a difficult word to understand. It is clearly old having the
> heteroclitic alternation. It always had accent on the genitive

because

> it conforms with QAR. There's no need to drum up pretend forms. The
> only form that is acceptable in the above besides *udnós is *wednós
> which shouldn't even be double-asterisked considering that that

alternate

> form is reflected in Hittite. I don't understand your reasoning

here, if

> we can even call it that.
>
> Where on earth is the reflex of **wedns? Why isn't _this_ double-
> asterisked?
>
>
> > Rather than have the pronoun form *so produce a nominative you

now let

> > it mark a genitive, and of all genders.
>
> It would be nice if before you reject, that you understand what

you're

> rejecting. I've said clearly multiple times that a particle *sa

marked

> the IndoTyrrhenian _animate nominative_. It didn't in any way mark

the

> inanimate, which was bear. Obviously so since we don't find

inanimates

> marked with *-s in IE itself, do we. Where do you dream this stuff

up?

>
> The genitive is NOT marked and NEVER WAS marked with the same

particle

> as the nominative. I had said that the IndoTyrrhenian genitive was

a

> _suffix_ *-ase that ultimately derived from the Proto-Steppe

ablative

> particle *si. This is to be distinguished from *sa, the Proto-

Steppe

> general demonstrative that the ancestor of Uralic and EA have been
> shown to have used as a 3ps marker.
>
> Pay attention.
>
>
> > In the old days a vowel was inserted you say, and later speakers

could

> > handle the form without,
>
> ?? I can't be bothered to repeat myself and correct you when you

don't

> even pay attention. You can reread the post you're blindly

responding to

> and paraphrase properly next time. A vowel was inserted in

IndoTyrrhenian

> to seperate a consonant-ending stem from a consonant-beginning

suffix.

>
>
> > A desinence that fails to attract accent may be a desinence

without

> > any vowel to do it with. That is simpler by any standard,
>
> Any standard except phonotactics, etymology, morphology,

accentuation,

> etc. Syllable shape is the most basic part of a reconstruction so

if we

> go willy-nilly on that, we really end up with a chaotic result. You
> lack a standard by simply stringing consonants in an absurd chain

in

> every language you deal with and then say that the vowels are "sub-
> phonemic".

Do not English <twelfths> and <sixths> contain absurd strings? And
Jens has heard [ptkllI] in English.

Richard.