Re: [tied] Qualitative ablaut - case is even more closed

On Fri, 01 Dec 2000 21:08:15 , "Glen Gordon"
<glengordon01@...> wrote:

>> >>Any n.pl. in *-@2 (Skt. -i, elswhere, including Hitt., -a).
>> >
>> >Examples?
>>
>>Lat. <nomina>. Sigh.
>
>No need to sigh, Miguel. I wanted you to provide a clear example to discuss.

And you couldn't think of one yourself?

>In the case of Latin /nomina/, how can we be sure that our /-a/ hasn't been
>re-introduced.

From where?

>Are you asserting then that Latin /nomina/ directly comes
>from IE *no:mn-x?

Leaving aside what the PIE shape of the first bit was, yes:
*...-mn-h2.

>>No, the acc. is *podm (*pedm), with short *o (*e). There's >lengthened
>>grade only in the nominative (*po:ds/*pe:ds).
>
>Well, I'm just going by Mr Burrow, the Sanskrit guy, who describes *pod- as
>a "root noun". Other root nouns are things like *re:g "chief". I was under
>the impression that they are lengthened even in the accusative...

In Sanskrit, the acc. is indeed pá:dam, by Brugmann's law (*o
_retains_ its length in open syllables). We have Grk. poda, etc., all
with short *o.

Skt. <ra:t.>, <ra:j-> is lengthened throughout the paradigm, and
indeed this is what we find elsewhere (Lat. re:x, re:gis; OIr. ri:).
The **a: in a palatal environment (*g^) failed to back, and developed
to *e:, distinct from short *e (< **a).

>>I see nothing about tonal accent here, and I see *a: > *o, as was my
>>suggestion, so I would have to guess you're saying I'm right?
>
>Erh, not quite. I don't think we envision the same pre-IE. As for tonal
>accent, I told you that accented schwa becomes *e and unaccented schwa
>becomes *o, except in conjugation.

You told me, but you failed thus far to give any examples or any
precise rules. So what's your view on the poimé:n/dáimo:n thing?

>So we now almost agree... Except, you are perverting the sound
>correspondances I've been so careful to establish. Your MidIE
>**wa:t:n/**wa:t:na:s, if it were ever a possible form, would yield IE
>**wo:t:r/**wo:t:no:s which doesn't exist. How do you justify long vowels
>that aren't attested?

The root had a long vowel (**wa:dn-). Under the stress, this develops
to *o (*wódr). When unstressed, **a: is first shortened to **a, and
then develops normally to *e (*wednós). What's the problem?

>It's far better explained with alternating short vowels *a and *e (schwa) on
>the root *wat:-/*wet:- (later *wod-/*wed-) which is evocative of other
>alternating *o/*e patterns, by the way.

Well no, that's merely begging the question. My aim was rather to
_explain_ *e/*o ablaut.

>>The pattern is wholly illusory. The "stative" has *a because of the
>>colouring by *h2. The endings are, quite regularly:
>>
>>*-h2-e
>>*-th2-e
>>*-0-e
>
>Hittite [-ha(ri), -ta(ri), -a(ri)], no?

Yes, in the mediopassive, which has *o-vocalism throughout teh endings
[pl. -wasta(ri), -duma(ri), -anta(ri)]. We don't find that in the
perfect, which has *-e (except before *h2, of course) [sg. *-h2-e,
*th2-e, *-e; pl. *-m-é, *-t-é (*-h1-é/*-s-é), *-r-é].

>The 3ps may not have originally been
>*-e. Afterall, there is clearly an automatic semantic link between the 3ps
>ending (whether *-e or *-a) and the pronominal *e which can offer confusion.

The ending *is* pronominal *-e (a.k.a. the thematic vowel). In the
third person perfect, we sporadically find (pronominal?) *-s instead
(Hitt. 3p.sg. *-s; Skt./Avest. 3pl. *-rs).

>Anyways, before you send out another message, consider the following list of
>changes (in chronological past-first order) that I believe must have existed
>in Late IE from 5000 BCE onward. This is after the accent became "mobile"
>via the loss of final vowels in MidIE and after the establishment of *e/zero
>ablaut due to a strong stress accent:
>
> - stress accent to tonal
>
> - *-éx -> *-á:
> *dwex "two" > *dwa:
> *(e)kWtwex "eight" > *(e)kWtwa:

So what about *-ah2 in the feminine?

> - e/o ablaut (unaccented *e > *o)
> - resistance in vowel-harmonious conjugation
> where e-grade is non-stative
> and a-grade is stative.
> - plural *-es remains by analogy
> with *-mes & *-tes.

Which in turn remain because of? And what about *-men and *-ten?

> - *eC{w} -> *aC{w}
>
> - shift of *a to *o
> *á: -> *o:
> *á -> *o
> *aC -> *oC
> *-a -> *-a (remains)
>
> - *-o: -> *-o:u
> - dual and locative in *-u arise
> - new formations like *péku and *génu
> - locative *-i from *ei "here"
> - dative *-ei
>
> - accent regularisation in athematic/thematic
> - thematic gets initial accent

No it doesn't. There are whole categories of nominal and verbal
thematic formations with the accent on the theme vowel (Grk. phorós,
Skt. tudáti, etc.)

> - athematic gets accent on
> non-nominoaccusative case endings
> - adjectives keep old accent

Unh? So now you agree with me that adjectives _did_ exist? OK, for
<phorós> "carrying" above, read *<snusós> "daughter-in-law".

> - *-om -> *-o:
> - genitive in *-o: created (later instrumental)

So what about the ins. in *-e:?

> - 1ps thematic *-o: from *-om
>
> - *ego: replaces *meu
> - meaning "I am here"
> from *e-ge- (*e "this") plus them.1ps *-o:
>
> - indicative *-i established from affixed *ei "here"
>
> - 1ps them. n-i. *-o: reestablished as *-om

I assume you mean "present" instead of "indicative". Why don't we
have present *-o:i; past *o:, then?


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