[tied] Re: sum

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
wrote:

> >
> >
> > Also, one could do as follows:
> > Take a root
> > *ber-
> > add irreal -s-
> > *ber-s-
> > inflect semi-thematically
> > bher-s-óm
> > bhér-s-s
> > bhér-s-t
> > (I think I'll leave out the plural)
> >
> > Voilà, sigmatic aorist.
>
> Perhaps Jens' rule should be extended to:
> stressed -ó- before voiced sound
> unstressed -e- or nothing before unvoiced sound _and in open
> syllable_ (ie. before syllable boundary)

You seem to be under the misconception that the thematic vowel rule
is sensitive to the accent. It is not. The alternation is the same
in *´-o-m, *´-e-s, *´-e-t, *´-o-me, *´-e-te, *´-o-nt (and the
corresponding primary endings) and in *-ó-m, *-é-s, *-e-t, *-ó-me, *-
é-te, *-ó-nt (and primary variants). This has nothing to do with the
accent-governed e/o alternation of *p&2-tér-es 'fathers' : *swé-sor-
es 'sisters'.

>
> In Danish we have
> Amérika /ämé?Rikä/
> and
> amerikansk /ameRikä´nsk/ (where ä is a fronted /a/, not an /æ/)
> That's because the syllables before the stress have the structure
> -VC(C)-, under and after the stress -C(C)V-.
> So it's
> /ä-mé?-Ri-kä/
> and
> /am-eR-i-kánsk/ > /am-O-i-kánsk/
>
> With Jens' rule, such a syllable behaviour would create havoc with
> the ablaut vowels.

I don't see the relevance, nor do I see it is true for the Danish
examples you use. Syllable division is an interpretation, never a
fact. And the ablaut rules apply to a different language anyway.

> pre-PIE
> nom.,gen.sg. padáz
> acc.,gen.pl. padám

What funny and inconsistent double functions are these? What
indicates that this was ever so?

> diversification for syntactic reasons
> nom. pádz, gen.sg. padáz
> acc. pádm, gen.pl. padám

Why would a change in accent bring about these functional splits?

> >
> nom. pá: , gen.sg. padáz
> acc. pádm, gen.pl. padám
>
> Jens' rule:
> nom. pe:, gen.sg. pedóz
> acc. podm, gen.pl. pedóm

So the /o/ of Gk. póda and Arm. otn (and Skt. pá:dam by Brugmann's
law) is due to the voicing of the /d/, huh? And the /e/ of *H2nér-
m., Gk. anéra, Ved. náram? And the /o/ of *wókW-m. 'voice', Avest.
va:cim, Toch.AB wak, wek? Why is there -o- in Gk. kló:ps 'thief',
and why -e- in phré:n, phréna?

>
> Sanskrit-speakers try to fix it:
> nom. pe:t, gen.sg. pedóz
> acc. podm, gen.pl. pedóm
> (because -d- is still not allowed after -e-)
>
> Latin-speakers try to fix it:
> nom. pe:s, gen.sg. pedóz
> acc. podm, gen.pl. pedóm
> (because -d- is still not allowed after -e-)
>
> So, now I got past the possible criticism that acc. -Vm is not
> stressed.

Perhaps you fixed it, but apparently it just wasn't broke.

Jens