--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Rob" <magwich78@...> wrote:
>
> > Well, do you have any idea as to what that "certain prominence"
> > was? I, for one, cannot answer those questions until I get more
> > information about your ideas here.
>
> But how can you say there was *no* special prominence in stem-final
> vowels?
Rather easily, I think.
> That is what we observe, and denying it is a very strong statement
> that demands good arguments in its favour. You do not seem to accept
> that obligation.
Technically, we don't observe anything in IE. Every reconstructed IE
form has an asterisk in front of it, meaning that there is *no direct
attestation* for the form. However, comparative evidence being what it
is, we've arrived at something which is very close to what IE actually
was. In that vein, then, we can "observe" the "thematic" declensions
as they were at the very end of IE proper. But we cannot directly
observe what the prestages were for those declensions. Thus, to say
that we can (let alone do) observe the prestages is erroneous.
I hate to say this, but I fear that you are confusing theory with fact
here. As a result, I'm not surprised that you hardly give any
consideration to my arguments.
> I find it relatively easy to guess at word-final vowel lengthening
> (as in Avestan and Old Persian) operating at a time before the
> flexives became fully attached. That would indeed produce what we
> find. I do not know the development of many languages over millennia,
> so I do not feel particularly embarrassed that I cannot produce
> another one that does exactly the same.
Now that sounds more plausible to me. Word-final syllables in many
languages are prosodically special (I believe the term is "anceps") --
that is, they can be interpreted as short or long in languages that
contrast vowel length.
Allow me to do a thought-experiment here. Let's pick a secure IE word -
- *ágro- 'field' < *xégro- (I consider the *e to be phonemic, but not
phonetic). If the Ablauting vowel began as a central vowel, such
as /a/, then an even earlier form would've been *xágra-. With
lengthening of word-final vowels, we'd get *xágra:-. If the vowel
remained long when case-endings were added, then we'd have *xágra:s,
*xágra:m, etc. A sound-change whereby /a:/ > /o:/ > /o/ would be
sufficient to produce the "thematic" declension as we believe it to be,
based on the comparative evidence. In that case, there would probably
be no need for a separate phoneme /z/.
However, if the stem-final vowel was shortened when case-endings were
added, then we'd have *xágras, *xágram, etc. With this situation, it
is not as easy to attribute the vowel quality to purely vocalic sound-
changes. So a phoneme or allophone /z/ may be necessary here.
The question, however, is why some IE nouns have stems in vowels and
some do not. Were the different categories formed at different times?
Are some borrowings and others are not?
- Rob