Re: [tied] Qualitative ablaut - case closed like never before

On Sun, 03 Dec 2000 07:51:18 , "Glen Gordon"
<glengordon01@...> wrote:

Please don't post in HTML.

>Concerning the supposed plural *no:mn-x, why does the following link show the Sanskrit plural of /na:ma(n)/ to be /na:ma:ni/?
>Before you jump the gun and tell me "But it ends with /-i/, silly. Therefore *-x is attested!", I'm wondering about the extra length in the second syllable that you might help to explain for me. For all the world, it would appear to me to be a suggestion of IE *nomó:n (from an earlier **nomónx just like *wodr & *wedo:r) where Sanskrit /-i/ has been secondarily added.

Pay attention. These are the "vrddhi-collectives" I was discussing
with Piotr. The pl. of <na:ma> in Vedic is actually <na:ma:ni>,
<na:ma:> or <na:ma>.
There were two ways of forming collectives in PIE, adding *-h2, or
lengthening of the suffix vowel. In Ved. <na:ma:> < *Hno(:)mo:n we
have lengthening, in Lat. nomina we have *-h2. In Skt. <na:ma:ni> <
*Hno(:)mo:onh2, we have both.

>Miguel stated: 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?
>I've just given you a long list of precise rules, Miguel.

About precisely how unstressed *e gives *o? I don't think so.

>The poimé:n/dáimo:n thing? Greek "pastor" and "demon"? Or are we talking about IndoEuropean itself? Please, let's only deal with IndoEuropean and not random items in any IE language. What's the IE relevance to poimé:n/dáimo:n?

I'd suggest you think about it.

>I have provided some of these main preIE rules like "MidIE penultimate accent"

So how does that explain protero-dynamic vs. hystero-dymanic vs.
static declensions?

>Miguel confusingly states in two seperate areas of your last post:
>The **a: in a palatal environment (*g^) failed to back, and developed
>to *e:, distinct from short *e ( < **a).
>[...]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?

>There are three very large problems that defy probability:
> 1) You are heavily dependent on the unlikelihood
> that *g^ is a very ancient, seperate phoneme
> from IE *g and not caused by Late IE *e.

*g^ was most certainly not caused by *e. I, and many others with me,
consider it to be a separate PIE phoneme. And those who do not
consider it a separate phoneme know better than to simply claim *g^
was "caused by *e". It's much more complex than that. If there were
a simple rule to predict *g vs. *g^ the matter wouldn't be
controversial in IE studies, would it?

>2) You reconstruct *a: unnecessarily when no
> evidence suggests that this vowel should
> be vrddhi.
>
> 3) There is no order to the development of **a:
> which is free to become either a short OR
>long vowel without solid explanation.

I have given the explanation: stress.

>First of all, if it is true that **a: > *o, except in the environs of an already existant *g^ where it becomes *e:, as you have now claimed,

What I have claimed is that in certain circumstances (e.g. after *y-
as in *ye:kwrt, *maybe*, as in the case of re:g^, before *g^), **a:
develops into *e: instead of *o.

>you are stating that *e(:) does not cause allophony in velars (*g > *g^).

That in any case. E.g. Slavic c^asU < *ke:s-.

>In all likelihood, *g^ is merely a secondary item, a palatal allophone of *g in the presence of front *e. I think most IEists would accept this as a late development, otherwise we would expect much more ancient "satem" languages than what we actually have.

>Second, please provide the exact sound changes for your preIE **a if **a: is supposed to have created all of *o, *e:, *e and *a (??!). Is there short preIE **a at all? What twisted preIE phonological system do you have in mind, exactly? I really can't help but believe that you're just making it up as you go along. If *re:g^ is supposed to be long throughout the paradigm and yet with mobile accent,

I didn't say it had mobile accent. Looks like a static root noun to
me.

>I'm sure you've seen my yet-to-be-revised site at:
> <A href="http://glen-gordon.tripod.com/language.html">http://glen-gordon.tripod.com/language.html</A>
>It says some more on the subject.

Actually. I haven't.

I'm going to quit now. I'm tired of cleaning up stuff like this:

> indicative analogical pre-indicative established alterations --------------------------------------------------------- 1pp *-mes *-mesi/*-mes *-mes/*-me 2pp *-tes *-tesi/*-tes *-tes/*-te
>1ps *-om > *-o: *-o:i/*-o: *-o:/*-o(m)

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