Re: Ingvar and Ivar

From: tgpedersen@...
Message: 6178
Date: 2001-02-19

--- 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"?
> Piotr
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
that guy.


> ----- 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?