Re: [tied] Re: PIE i- and u-stems again

From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Message: 47533
Date: 2007-02-19

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:18:02 +0100, Piotr Gasiorowski
<gpiotr@...> wrote:

>On 2007-02-19 01:00, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
>> There is no shift to *-o- in substantives, as the *-o- is
>> well-attested in the pronominal forms themselves. *kWeh1 and
>> *kWesyo have /e/ because these forms simply do not contain a
>> thematic vowel: they come from *kWis, n. *kWid, f. *kWih2.
>There seems to be a fundamental difference between our views on the
>status of the *-i- forms (often found alongside *-e/o- forms in a
>suppletive relationship to them). I like Jens's theory about the *i
>resulting from the phonetic reduction of the thematic vowel in clitic
>pronouns (as in some other departments of PIE morphophonology). Why
>should forms like *kWesjo, *kWeh1 be more closely related to "athematic"
>*kWis rather than "thematic" *kWos?

The question where the *i comes from aside, the of
*kWis _is_ *kWesio (e.g. OCS c^I-to, c^eso) and the of
*is _is_ *esio, just like *so has Gsg. *tosio, etc. It is
undeniable that there were two different pronominal
declensions in PIE, and I find nothing surprising about the
fact that the two differ both in the strong cases (*-os,
*-om, *-od, *-ah2 vs. *-is, *-im, *-id, *-ih2) and in the
weak cases (*-o- vs. *-e-). Rather, it would be surprising
if this were not the case.

>It's obvious that the analogical
>spread of *-o- could take place even in pronominal declensions (let
>alone nouns and adjectives): what are oblique stems like m./n. *to-sm-
>if not regularised counterparts of *te-sm-

In my opinion, they are from *t%-esm- > *to-sm-.

>(cf. f. *te-s[m]-jah2-)?

The feminine forms are structured differently. While in the
masculine forms everything is as if we had a thematic root
(*te/o-, *ye/o-, *kWe/o-, etc.) followed by the inflected
forms of *is, the feminine forms seem to be built on *te/o-
etc. plus the feminine marker *ih2/*jeh2 (not the anaphoric
pronoun *ih2/*ejeh2). Slavic has preserved the original
paradigm best:

N *sé-(i)h2 > *sáh2 (OCS ta)
A *té-(i)h2-m > *táh2m (OCS toN)
G *te-jéh2-os > *tojãs (OCS tojeN)
DL *te-jéh2-e(i) > *tojãi (OCS toji)
I *te-jeh2-ét > *tojh2á:(m) (OCS tojoN)

N *té-(i)h2-es > *tãs (Lith. tõs)
A *té-(i)h2-m-s > *tá:ns (OCS ty)
G *te-jeh2-s-õm > *tojh2sõm (OCS têxU)
D *te-jeh2-mós > *tojh2mós (OCS têmU)
L *te-jeh2-sú > *tojh2sú (OCS têxU)
I *te-jeh2-mí(:)s > tojh2mí(:)s (OCS têmi)

Vedic (and Germanic) have innovated by adding inflected
forms of *smih2 "one"(f.) to the oblique sg. forms instead:

N *sé-(i)h2 > *sáh2 (Ved. sá:)
A *té-(i)h2-m > *táh2m (Ved. tá:m)
G *te-sm-jéh2-os > *tes(m)jãs (Ved. tásya:s)
D *te-sm-jéh2-e(i) > *tes(m)jãi (Ved. tásyai)
L *te-sm-jéh2-e > *tes(m)jã(m) (Ved. tásya:m)
I *te-jeh2-ét > *tojh2á:(m) (Ved. táya:)

>> It suggests to me that the deadjectival verbs are built upon
>> the athematic root of the adjective, which would compromise
>> the link with the "cato-group".
>The way I'd reconstruct them, we have, first, the "athematic" variant
>with an aorist in *-éh1-/*-h1- (I know Jens has elaborated on this
>recently, but this approximate reconstruction will do for the present
>discussion) and a derived present in *-h1-jé/ó- (the *h1 will usually be
>rendered invisible by Pinault's Law). Secondly, we have the "thematic"
>variant with an aorist in *-e-h1- (where the *-e- never disappears) and
>a present in *-e-h1-je/o-. I'd also predisct the existence of a minor
>subtype in *-i-h1-je/o- depending on the original location of accent,
>but analogy might have blurred the distinction early. What presisely is
>wrong with this fully transparent scheme, and why is it so inadequete
>for Balto-Slavic?

Because Slavic *-i:- (circumflex) cannot come from *-éh1-,
*-h1-, *-h1jé- or *-éh1je-, which would have given -ê"-,
-0-, -jé- and -ê~-, respectively. And Baltic -i- (short)
cannot come from any of those either. In particular, a
present form in *-h1jé- would have merged with the jé-stems,
and this is precisely what did *not* happen in Baltic or
Slavic (although it happened in other branches).

>I find your proposal strange even if it seems to work
>phonologically for BSl., since I can't make any sense of a stem which is
>underlyingly //-eh1-j-//, and which is BOTH present and aorist.

I don't know if it's underlyingly //-eh1-j-//, because I
have no theory about where a long diphthong like *-eh1i
comes from. As far as I'm concerned, it's a single
morpheme. Like the causatives-iteratives, the
essive-fientives seem to have stood outside the normal
present-aorist system.

Miguel Carrasquer Vidal