--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> Stress alternation in *PIE* nouns is nothing unusual -- I gather
you really mean Germanic. Vernerian alternations in nouns were indeed
levelled out in prehistoric Germanic (in historical times the same
happened to verbs in many languages, cf. English choose : chosen vs.
Old English c^e:osan : coren), but old stress dublets may have left
sporadic traces in the recorded languages. There must be a reason why
OHG haso contrasts with NW Germanic -r- forms such as OE hara -- an
exact cognate with the same morphological structure (a masculine n-
stem). What, according to you, is "the standard explanation"?
Interesting grammatical question. By saying that one possible
solution is not accepted as the standard explanation I am not
positing the existence of a "standard explanation". But since you ask
me, my impression is that mostly people leave as it is, just noting
the fact that there is a Vernerian alternation (as you did in your
first answer). Some day someone will undoubtedly make an explanation
as systematic as the one everyone uses for the verbs, but I'm not
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: tgpedersen@...
> To: cybalist@...
> Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2001 1:25 PM
> Subject: [tied] Re: Ingvar and Ivar
> Always glad to be of service. But can we conclude from the
existence of such a Verner-alternating pair that they both came from
a stress-alternating single word? This is routinely done for verbs,
but this new-fangled idea of stress-alternating PIE nouns (after my
time at uni) seems not to be quite accepted as the standard
explanation for eg. Hase/hare?