Re: IE athematics

> Finally, the range [*leigheti/*leighti/*ligh�ti] is most certainly not
> reconstructable for the most ancient stages of IE, unless you can
>justify
> reconstructing this range of variation with valid daughter examples of
>this
> or parts of this range. Perhaps you were just tired at the time you
>wrote
> this. The verb *pelh- is reconstructed. Many verbs like *lin�kWti with
>modal
> affixes *-n- or *-ye- are clearly derivatives and different in both form
>and
> function, Piotr, so there is nothing to argue.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>However, the [Old English] root /luf-/ underlying it all was a >"bound"
>morpheme which didn't occur in isolation as a word or even >as a stem.
>[...] Likewise, many reconstructed PIE "verbs" are not >actual verb stems
>but bound roots yielding various derivatives [...]>The fact that a verb is
>"derived" doesn't automatically make it >younger than the root to which it
>is related. The bare root (with or >without a thematic vowel) may have
>never existed as an autonomous >stem in the first place.

Yes. We agree. So why are we arguing this point? :)

> The thematic/athematic distinction is clearcut when it refers to
> >conjugation types, not to individual verb-yielding roots, which >could
>produce stems of either or both types.

Exactly.

>We say (very inaccurately) that *bher- is a "thematic verb", because >the
>most common derivative of this root is *bhere-ti, but it's wise >not to
>ignore *bhi-bher-ti and to have a place for it in the >reconstructed
>system.

Yes. However, I take *bher- as deriving from an earlier *bere (3ps AND the
root). The reduplicated stem is, like the past, a derived form and hence
athematic in Common IE.

> You seem to assume (if you don't, correct me) that >morphologically
>complex forms are DIACHRONICALLY reducible to >simpler ones, and that
>today's suffixes are yesterday's clitics. Of >course this is often true,
>but the question is, is it true often >enough for your analysis of the
>thematic vowel to be the most >reasonable one (let alone the only
>imaginable one)?

I don't see how it's an assumption in regards to IE. Do you know of any
serious linguists proposing that IE came from a pre-history of complex
consonant clusters and out-of-control polysynthesism?
There's a reason for this - the accent obviously had the ability to reduce
CVCV' (where the last vowel is stressed) to CCV as in *es-/*s- or
*bher-/*bhr-. Are you proposing that this was not the case?

> The fact that a speculative argument is internally consistent >doesn't
>make it less speculative. Other people might produce equally >clever
>alternative interpretations. A statement of your position -- >especially
>when it concerns unattested languages -- does not >automatically become a
>"theory" until you show that it respects the >constraints imposed by
>historical linguistic methodology.

Alright. It's noted. I'm trying to figure out how I might go about this
concisely though. I'm glad we had this little chat :)

On a side note, I'm rethinking your remarks on *pelh-. There is no *pelh- at
all, is there? I only find attestations that show *pleh- in Greek, Latin and
Sanskrit. Of course, that there this a Semitic root *m-l-? "to fill" may or
may not have a bearing on my so-far lunatic theory. I'll try to structure
this theory according to your input and get back to you.

- gLeN

______________________________________________________