[tied] Re: sum

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> wrote:
> > Actually the other way around. The -o- came first. The -e- of

the

> > thematic vowel did not yet exist but was added later, is what

I'd

> > have to say.
>
> Of course; that's really what I meant; it is also what I respond

to

> in the following. I just got it backwards in the typing.
>
> > My problem is that since I'm no pro, I don't have enough
> information
> > on basics and therefore I have to make do with throwing half-

baked

> > ideas into the air for the pros to shoot down or improve, as the
> > case might be.
> >
> > >
> > > 1. Are the e-forms also secondary in the categories in which

the

> > > thematic vowel is accented? It certainly is in verbs in *-sk^é-
> ti
> > > and in denominatives in *-yé-ti. If so what were the forms

like

> > > before the -e- was introduced?
> > >
> >
> > I think I'd have to resort to claiming they were late forms.
>
> "They" meaning all these categories? Note that they exist in all

the

> IE we know.
>

I believe the compound of them in Hittite is -i-s^k-. Where's the
-e? If so, -sk^é- and -yé- are post-PIH, PIE. That's late PIE (and
BTW by 'late' I always mean 'late PIE').

> > > 2. Why would there not have been a thematic vowel in the

forms -

> > and
> > > only in those forms - where the following desinential segment
> was
> > > voiceless?
> >
> > Why would there have been an -e-? I have no answer, but your e/o
> > rule similarly has no answer. I don't think I make it less or

more

> > explainable bt dividing it into two phases.
>
> Why would there have been an *-e-? Because we see it. All branches
> reflect it. In my estime you make it absurd by not wanting to have
> it in the protolanguage.

Why would there have been a zero-grade in the semi-thematic
inflection? Because we see it. Etc etc

> > > 3. The e/o rule also applies outside of the verb. Was there no
> > vowel
> > > in the vocative of o-stems in IE? Is the *-e of Lat. domine,

Gk.

> > > ánthro:pe, Lith. vy´re, OSC boz^e, and Sanskrit déva a post-

PIE

> > > addition?

For 'post-PIE', substitute 'late PIE'. And yes.

And what about the *-e- > *-a- of the feminine and the

> > > collective which is not *-o-? Is that a later
> addition/insertion?
> >

As in collective = feminine? Is that part of anatolian?

> > > And if acc. *tó-m, *tó-d are fine old thematic forms, what was
> the
> > > vowel of the genitive *tésyo?
> > The genitive must once have been *tes. Or rather *t&s (I believe
> > Miguel has a solution of problen of PIE phonology by

resurrecting

> > full vowels from schwa's)
>
> Then why was it not *tos if the only thematic vowel shape of PIE

age

> is *-o-? Or fromt he other angle, if you arbitrarily write schwa
> insted of the thematic e's, why are the later e'of the thematoc
> conjugation not old schwas, i.e. e's??

Sorry, I misinterpreted my own improved Jens' rule. It's *te-syo
with the stem vowel in an open syllable. Therefore -e- .
Cf. *dom- "master" but des-pote:s where it lost its -m- and the stem
vowel is before am unvoiced sound.

>
> I can't see there can be any doubt that thematic -e- and thematic -

o-

> both existed in the protolanguage. Therefore they both have a pre-
> PIE origin.

Non sequitur. One might have a pre-PIE origin, the other originate
in the PIE period.

> Thematic vowels are stem-final vowels in IE. There are *no* accent-
> governed ablauting vowels in that position.

Ablaut co-occurs with accent in the semi-thematic paradigm. Co-
occurring events may be cause and effect, or effect or cause, or
both effects of a third cause. That third cause is described by your
rul, modified.

>Therefore, there is no
> chronological problem to solve, because the thematic vowel
> alternation only applies to a specific position on the words where
> the other rules do not operate. That fact is in itself so far from
> being trivial that it cannot possibly have been brought about by
> independent innovations in ten IE branches.
>

Yes, and that is a problem. You have increased the entia by
splitting one into two: voicedness-dependent ablaut and ordinary
ablaut. I'm trying to move the boundary of dependent ablaut into the
territory of the independent one. That does not multiply the number
of entia; Occam would be pleased with me and not with you (the other
merits of your proposals untold).


Torsten