Re: IE Thematic Vowel Rule

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Rob" <magwich78@...> wrote:

> Looking at the o-stem masculine nouns, we have the following:
>
> Nom. sg. *-os pl. *-o:s
> Acc. sg. *-om pl. *-ons
> Gen. sg. *-osyo pl. *-o:m
> Dat. sg. *-o:i pl. *-o:is
> Abl. sg. *-o:d pl. *-o:is
> Ins. sg. *-o: pl. *-o:is
> Loc. sg. *-oi pl. *-oisu
>
> In my opinion, this can be traced back to an earlier scheme:
>
> Nom. sg. *-o-s pl. *-o-es
> Acc. sg. *-o-m pl. *-o-ns
> Gen. sg. *-o-s-yo pl. *-o-om
> Dat. sg. *-o-ei pl. *-o-eis
> Abl. sg. *-o-ed pl. *-o-eis
> Ins. sg. *-o-e? pl. *-o-eis
> Loc. sg. *-o-i pl. *-o-isu
>
> That is, there was a non-alternating stem vowel in *-o to which the
> case endings were agglutinated. My source here is Sihler's New
> Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin (1995).

Note in all these cases (except gen sg) the thematic vowel is followed
by a voiced sound as long as we assume *-s# was voiced. In the gen sg
it looks like the *-yo suffix was added to a previous *-os# which also
agreed with Jens' Law. It's assumed that the thematic vowel was
orginally *e.

> Looking at the o-stem neuter nouns, we have the following:
>
> Nom./Acc. sg. *-om pl. *-a: < *-ex

Correct. Note that *x is unvoiced, but colors *e to *a and then
lengthens it.

> The other cases are the same as for the masculines. Where you see a
> common thematic vowel in both the singular and plural here, I see
> suppletion. In other words, I do not consider the vowel in *-ex to
> have the same origin as that in *-om.
>
> Looking at the a:-stem neuter nouns, we have the following:
>
> Nom. sg. *-a: pl. *-a:s
> Acc. sg. *-a:m pl. *-a:ns
> Gen. sg. *-a:s pl. *-a:om
> Dat. sg. *-a:i pl. *-a:is
> Abl. sg. *-a:d pl. *-a:is
> Ins. sg. *-a: pl. *-a:is
> Loc. sg. *-a:i pl. *-a:isu
>
> Again, this looks like it can be traced to an earlier scheme, with *-
> a: < *-ex:
>
> Nom. sg. *-ex pl. *-ex-es
> Acc. sg. *-ex-m pl. *-ex-ns
> Gen. sg. *-ex-s pl. *-ex-om
> Dat. sg. *-ex-ei pl. *-ex-eis
> Abl. sg. *-ex-ed pl. *-ex-eis
> Ins. sg. *-ex-e? pl. *-ex-eis
> Loc. sg. *-ex-i pl. *-ex-isu
>
> The obvious conclusion here is that there was a stem-formant *-ex to
> which the case endings were agglutinated. It also seems that this
> formant is identical to the neuter plural ending *-ex.

So now in all cases the *e is followed by *x which colors and
lengthens it to *a:. With Jens' Law we can reconstruct a single
thematic vowel *e that will explain both paradigms.

It seems that you're arguing for two different systems, even though
one suffices. Occam's Razor suggests we use Jens' Law because it's
simpler. When we turn our attention to thematic verbs Jens' Law
applies even as well. In your system it seems you'd have to
reconstruct two thematic vowel systems (one in *e and the other in *o)
and assume they merge into one with the *o system occuring with voiced
consonants and *-s and the *e system occuring elsewhere. Isn't it
simpler to assume one system with lenition of final *s to /z/?

The conditioning factor is most likely stress. Presumably the
alternation happens on syllables following stress, whereas stressed *e
is unchanged. Stressed thematic vowels would come after ablaut.