Re: [tied] Qualitative ablaut - case closed

On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 09:59:21 , "Glen Gordon"
<glengordon01@...> wrote:

>>This is Rasmussen's proposal, and I believe it's incorect (*-h2 isn't
>>lost in the collective [n.pl.]).
>
>It isn't lost finally following a consonant? Examples?

Any n.pl. in *-@2 (Skt. -i, elswhere, including Hitt., -a).

>>So what about e.g. Arm. sirt (*k^e:rd + *-is)?
>
>Armenian is weird. :) Hmm, well could it be a new animate formation or
>derivative? What is *-is?

It was transferred to the i-stems (nom.sg. in *-is), based on the
oblique stem *k^rdi-. The base is however a nominative form *k^e:rd-.
It's true that we have no direct examples of nom. *k^e:rd, but on the
whole, I'd say the vowel length had nothing to do with the *loss* of
*-d.

>>>The qualitative alternation is quite clearly determined for the most
>>> >>part by accentual alternations in the Tonal stage of Late IE.
>>
>>Do explain.
>
>- First, in Mid IE, there were only two vowels, *a and *e (schwa).
>- Suddenly, unaccented schwas were slaughtered
> and didn't survive :(
>- Then the accent changed from stress to tonal. Hooray!
>- Some accent patterns changed as well. Boo!
>- The remaining schwas fractured into *e (front) and *o (back).
>- This change was dependent on the new accent _at the time_.
> - *é > *e
> - *e > *o
>- Then the tonal accent did a few more twists and turns
> to try and cover up its earlier evil deeds.

I'll take it this is kinda like the "traditional" account of *e vs. *o
gradation (with all the devilish details taken out). I've never liked
the idea. I see no phonetic justifaction at all for unstressed
whatever > /o/. Most o's (or at least a good many of them) are
stressed anyway. Take, for instance, all the o-grade monosyllables
(*nokwts, *po:ds, *wodr, etc. etc.).


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...