[tied] Re: sum

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

> tgpedersen wrote:
>
> >>>By Jens' rule, whatever its phonological cause, that -e- is
> >>>preferred before unvoiced sound.
> >>
> >>But Jens' rule is pre-PIE, not post-PIE.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Which would be a problem, again, if the semi-thematic paradigm

didn't

> > belong to pre-PIE, which is does, by hypothesis.
>
> It IS a problem for you, since you're trying to explain the origin

of

> the THEMATIC pattern as a "generalisation" from the earlier

semithematic

> pattern.
>
> Here is the orthodox scenario:
>
> *bHér-e-t-, *bHér-o-nt- (with visible effects of Jens's thematic

vowel

> rule) > Proto-Italic *feret, *feront > Lat. fert, ferunt (with

loss of

> *e, but not *o). Most of the other IE branches simply retain the

old forms.

>
> Where is the problem alluded to above?
>
> Now if we assume that Schmalstieg is right:
>
> *bHér-t-, *bHr-ónt- > *bHér-e-t-, *bHér-o-nt- (with a whole

complex of

> analogical levellings including the insertion of -e- in the "new
> thematic" forms). The colour of this *e can hardly be explained

with

> recourse to Jens's rule, which is no longer operative at this

stage.

Nonsense. There is nothing in Jens' rule that requires it to take
place in one stage. It might as well be the result of the
application of two rules at different stages.

> Neither late PIE nor the early IE dialects show any evidence of *e

being

> preferred to *o before voiceless consonants.
>

As Jens' himself notes, only the thematic (and I add: the half-
thematic) voweel behaves that way. It is no more a problem of my
proposal than it is of Jens'.


Torsten