Re: [tied] PIE Word Formation (2)

The vocalisation has nothing to do directly with the developments of
the thematic vowel. I mentioned it only in the context of the relative
chronology of PIE sound changes. At some point in the history of PIE
unaccented thematic *o became possible. What's strange about that?
Every change has a limited chronological "window". Formations like
*bHóros are simply later, as a type, than those like *krétu-.
_____________

 

Oh.  I understand now.  Regarding the idea of the vocalized sonorant, is this purely Jens Rasmussen's idea? (It seems quite brilliant, by the way)  And am I correct in thinking that he is a well-known published linguist?  Also, is his theory about the vocalized sonorant currently well-accepted, or is it still considered more speculative?  You seem to have embraced it wholeheartedly.  Personally, despite its brilliance it still seems rather complex to me, with some difficult sound combinations (e.g. *bhlXgmos with what he says would have been a consonantal *X, if I understand correctly), and the problem of having no other evidence of such a consonant besides its appearance as the later *o seems quite major to me.  But I don't know if my non-professional opinion matters to people like you (I mean that with respect).
___________________

>> Originally, *o occurred before voiced consonants, *e elsewhere. My
suggestion is that in cases like *-i-h2-, *-i-ko- or *-i-sto- we see a
reflex of unaccented thematic *-e- followed by a suffix beginning with
a voiceless vowel (cf. e.g. accented *-áh2 < *-é-h2).

 

Do these suffixes begin with a voiceless vowel?  I thought *k, *st, and originally *h2 were all consonants.  Am I misunderstanding what you are saying again?

 

Andrew Jarrette