Re: sum

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

> 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').

Again, I don't quite understand. What does "them" refer to? Your
question "Where's the -e?" is strange. The -e- follows after -sk-,
so does the *-o-: Oettinger gives the Hittite endings of sk-verbs
like this: -skami, -skesi, -skezzi, -skaweni, -skette/ani, -skanzi.
That fits the other branches exactly.

>
> > > > 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

There is only *one* such relevant form, viz. sum. There is of course
zero-grade in sumus and sunt anyway, since also athematic verbs
(which I am sure this one was) have zero-grade here: Ved. smás,
sánti like imás, yánti 'go'. The question is then if we are to
reinterpret the story of all other IE verbs after the problem we
sense with sum. I find this ill advised.

> 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?

You don't seem to understand the question. If thematic *-e- is post-
PIE, then how did it happen that *néwos *néwom took to shaping a
feminine/collective with the structure *néw-e-H2 > *néwaH2 ? Was it
**néw-H2 before that time? And why did introduction of a stem which
could be known only as *néwo- not yield *néw-o-H2 > **néwo:, but
*néweH2 > *néwaH2 > néwa: ??

Bringing in Anatolian seems nonsensical to me if the problem is in
Latin. Surely that is not helped by just hoping that *néwaH2 is a
post-separation extra-Anatolian innovation. You cannot make *H1ésmi
that, for (1) sum is not Anatolian, and (2) esmi is Hittite.

>
>
> > > > 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 from the other angle, if you arbitrarily write schwa
> > insted of the thematic e's, why are the later e's of the

thematic

> > 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.

What is "improved" here? Thematic e/o is not sensitive to
open/closed in terms of syllable structure which seems to be what
you're saying. If I read that correctly you are taking arbitrary
clutching for straws to new heights. On top of this, how can one
call the first syllable of *tesyo _open_ except arbitrarily?

The loss of the nasal is specifically Greek here: Avest. d&:n.g
paitis^, Ved. dámpati-, pátir dán.

>
> >
> > 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.

What does "in the PIE period mean" if not at such a time that its
results are present in the IE protolanguage? Then that is also pre-
PIE. The two events can be simultaneous or not, we wouldn't know.
There may be more than two events; one could be a further
development of the other, we just couldn't tell. What is important
and really sequitur is that none of the alternants can be credibly
ascribed to post-PIE innovations taking place in the individual
branches after they have left the unity. The correspondences are
just too close for that. Your idea about sum demands, so I take it
that that was not such a good idea. The problem disappears if sum is
accounted for on its own which is not at all impossible.

> > 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

> rule, modified.

That needs to be spelled out if I am to be able to see it.

> >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).

Why is it that Occam can never be shown to have done anything good?
I am not multiplying anything, for it is a *fact* that the voice-
governed e/o alternation only occurs in stem-final position, as is
the truth that all vowels appearing in stem-final position exhbibit
that alternation. Does Occam bid us to disregard the descriptive
facts? Am I the only one who knows where the thematic vowels stand?

Jens