Re: Sos-

From: Torsten
Message: 65139
Date: 2009-09-26

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > I have a copy of that paper, which I should probably revisit.
> > > I agree the Old PIE thematic vowel was */a/, and I believe this
> > > was preserved as */a/ in later PIE in heavy syllables in
> > > non-verbal forms. For example Lat. <falx> 'sickle', Sicel
> > > <zagkle:>, Liguro-Latin <daculum>, Gallo-Rom. dial. <dal>,
> > > <daille>, etc. (by dissimilation from *dalklom vel sim.) have
> > > what I regard as original /a/ in the noun *dHalgH-s,
> > > *dHalgH-os, etc. corresponding to the verbal root *dHelgH-.
>
> Very poor example on my part since it depends on poorly attested
> Sicel and Ligurian. A better one is *da'k^ru-/*dak^ro'- 'tear'.
>
> > I hadn't thought of that, but it makes a lot of sense.
> > This is what I thought happened to cause ablauting paradigms:
> >
> > PPPIE *a: > PPIE -é:-/´-o:-/-Ø-´ > PIE -é-/´-o(:)-/-Ø-´
> > PPPIE *i: > PPIE -éI-/´-i:-/-i-´ > PIE -éI-/´-oI-/-i-´
> > PPPIE *u: > PPIE -óU-/´-u:-/-u-´ > PIE -éU-/´-oU-/-u-´
> >
> > where the last stage is generalization from stems in /a/ in order
> > to achieve ablauting paradigms (under Semitic influence, as
> > claimed by Vennemann?). Short /a/ would survive such changes.
>
> Yes. I have no satisfactory theory of ablaut (since there is
> remodelling all over the place in attested languages), but I doubt
> that we need to posit shifting from one type of accent to another.
> The actual PIE accent was complex, as hinted by the way the
> Rig-Veda represents it.

I must have explained myself badly. I am not positing accent type shifting, only showing what I think happened to the 3 PPPIE vowels /a/, /i/ and /u/ in tonic, post-tonic and pre-tonic position. Mayby I should write it like this:

PPPIE -á:-/´-a:-/-a:-´ > PPIE -é:-/´-o:-/-Ø-´
PPPIE -í:-/´-u:-/-i:-´ > PPIE -éI-/´-i:-/-i-´
PPPIE -ú:-/´-i:-/-u:-´ > PPIE -óU-/´-u:-/-u-´

and then, by analogy

PPIE -é:-/´-o:-/-Ø-´ > PIE -é-/´-o(:)-/-Ø-´
PPIE -éI-/´-i:-/-i-´ > PIE -éI-/´-oI-/-i-´
PPIE -óU-/´-u:-/-u-´ > PIE -éU-/´-oU-/-u-´

(sorry for all the P's, I needed three stages)

> Vennemann makes a big deal about Insular Celtic being VSO like
> Semitic. Lehmann has argued that when a lot of non-natives learn a
> language, it tends to become SVO. I see no plausible way that IC
> could have acquired VSO from Semitic. Anything but SVO is likely
> to have developed independently.

Actually my belief that some Semitic language must have influenced especially the Norther IE languages comes not from Vennemann, but from Möller and the numerous cognates he found, which look more like loans to me. The one book I've finished proofreading my OCR copy of is his 'Vergleichendes indogermanisch-semitisches Wörterbuch'. I could e-mail you a .pdf copy if you're interested.

> > > Likewise <albus> 'white' in my view has an old /a/.
> >
> > Strange things are happening around supposed PIE *albh- (*algW- ?)
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/64235
> >
> > similar to those around Latin/Germanic *at-n- "year"
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/45139
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/56709
> > UEW
> > 'oðe (o:ðe) 'Jahr' FU
> > Finn. vuosi (Gen. vuoden) 'Jahr'
> > (> lapp. N vuod´d´â ~ vuod´â: v-lo,kko 'date(year)');
> > est. voos (Gen. vooe) 'Jahr'; Jahresertrag, Ernte, Ausbeute; Mal'
> > (mõnel vooel 'manchmal', se vooe 'dieses Mal') |
> >
> > lapp. N *vuottâ-d´:
> > vu:ttii-val'det 'take into account, have regard to',
> > vuottâ -d´- : buorrev. 'goodness', nuorrâv. 'youth',
> > dâm vuod´âst 'in that respect, as far as that goes, for the
> > matter of that',
> > L -vuohta : puorre:v. 'Güte' |
> >
> > wotj. (ESK unter vo)
> > wa: waz´-w. pozapros^lyj god',
> > va, wa: S v.-pum, G w.-pum, J v.-pun, 'Zeit, Lebenszeit,
> > Menschenalter' (pum, pun, 'Ende, Spitze'),
> > ? S vales, G wales: v. n´an´, w.-ju 'Sommerkorn, Sommersaat'
> > (n´an´'Brot, Getreide', ju 'Getreide'),
> > (...) MU u: tauberis´ 'folgendes Jahr |
> >
> > syrj.
> > S vo, P u: mejm-u 'im vorigen Jahre'
> > PO u : ta u 'heuer', mejm~u 'voriges Jahr',
> > S vos´a, P os´a Sommergetreide (Gerste S P), Hafer, Weizen (P))' |
> >
> > ostj. (109) V al, DN ot, Kaz. oL 'Jahr' [ ? ung. -valy: tavaly
> > 'voriges Jahr, im vorigen od. vergangenen Jahre, im Vorjahre, im
> > letzten Jahre'.
> >
> > Finn. v, syrj. v und wotj. v, w sind vor dem labialen Vokal
> > entstandene sekundäre Konsonanten. Ung. v in tavaly ist zur
> > Vermeidung des Hiatus entstanden: *taal > taval > tavaly; ly ist
> > durch Palatalisation aus l entstanden.
> >
> > Falls wotj. vales hierher gehört, sind im Perm. zwei Vertretungen
> > von FU *ð vorhanden: *ð > ø und *ð > l.'
>
> My new strategy is to address one word at a time. I find 'hunger'
> very important.

Me too. As a matter of fact I'm rather peckish now. Erh, which word were you thinking of?

> > > And while I may not be able to disprove the notion of ablauting
> > > PIE-speakers overrunning earlier non-ablauting speakers, I find
> > > it hard to believe that the same scenario occurred exactly the
> > > same way in different areas,
> >
> > AFAI can see, all we need to assume to make that scenario work is
> > that at a certain time the hearth of the nomad attacks developed
> > ablaut.
> >
> > > and that the pre-IE substrate was always insulated from the
> > > ablauting Hochsprache by this Niedersprache.
> >
> > ?? Who said that?
>
> It would follow from the scenario you suggested, since the
> ablauting nomads would not directly conquer any non-IE-speakers,
> only non-ablauting IE-speakers who had already absorbed the
> substraters.

Not necessarily, they might have left some 'bald spots' where non-IE speakers survived, only to be wiped out by the ablauters.

> The real problem here is that the words with /a/ seldom show the
> "upper-class" variants with /e/ and /o/.

Class VI 'draw' vs. class I 'drive', perhaps (all of class VI strong verbs are best explained as PPGmc -a-/-a:-/-a:-/-a- >
PGmc -a-/-o:-/-o:-/-a-), Engl. grab vs OIc grípa, Engl. wag vs. OIc víkja "move"? Futher the OIc. class III verb exceptions gjalda "pay", gjalla "shout", hjálpa "help", skjálfa "tremble", skjalla "scold" with present root vowel /a(:)/ for /i/ (< PIE -é- before R). Other than that note the alternation -eu-/-u:- in most of the class II verbs vs. OE scu:fan, OHG su:fan; that alternation is of the same PIE/PPIE type as the -a-/-e- you were looking for. Note how large the -u:- subclass is in Dutch, as expected, I'm not convinced it grew later.

Note also that some of the class II -u:C- subclass have -uCC- geminated counterparts: OHG su:f-, Engl. sup, sip, Schrijver's *dubb- etc, Sw class III dimpa, damp,
http://ordnet.dk/ods/opslag?id=437209

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_strong_verb


Torsten