Miguel:
>I think an explanation that starts with the universal (OK,
>universal-except-for-Georgian :-) *pa(:) and *ma(:) is much more
>plausible.
Not plausible at all since, if it were true, we would have had
**paxte:r/*maxte:r or *pxte:r/**mxte:r (with the SAME accent)
instead of the actual *pxte:r/*maxte:r (with different accent AND
different vocalism!!). In your scheme, there simply is no
motivation for the differences seen in this natural pair of stems.
Clearly, the origin of *pxte:r is something different from
*maxte:r despite the shared ending.
BTW, English "guardian" is a pretty close example of a
semantically *pxte:r-like word. I'm sure there are even better
examples in other languages. I'll think about that more.
>Actually, it wasn't about *-mn/*-m�n, that was just an example.
>The question was about *any* IE suffix [ending in *m, *n, *r, *l,
>*y, *w].
What suffixes in particular? As I explained, *-mn and *-m�n-
are two different suffixes that happen to share the *-m-.
>Reformulated: how do you explain the distinction between
>the amphidynamic and hysterodynamic declensions?
If "amphidynamic" means a hybrid proterodynamic/hysterodynamic
paradigm, I assume that *wodr/*wednos is an example? Correct me
if I'm wrong otherwise I'll continue...
Afterall, I admit that, if *w�dr derives from MIE *w�t:en, the
genitive should be **wed�ns from earlier *wet:�n-se. Why then
did this stem adopt a mixed-up paradigm? For what purpose?
The solution is terribly simple tho'. The weak cases in *wodr
were altered in order to avoid a wandering accent from moving
about WITHIN the stem. In this way, the stem, when accented, is
given accent on ONE fixed syllable only. With a genitive *wedn-�s,
one now had the accent moving from a specific syllable in the
stem to the suffix. One may note as well that this is exactly why
the acrostatic regularisation formed in thematic nouns - All in
order to avoid the accent from jostling about WITHIN the stem
itself, rather than from the stem with a *fixed* accent on the
first syllable to certain accented suffixes.)
So, there's no need to remember that the accent falls on the first
syllable of the stem in the N-A. of *wodr but on the second
syllable of the stem in the G. while other paradigms have the
accent alternating between stem and suffix.
This regularization of stem accent occured in Early Late IE
after the loss of final vowel when the accentuation became
"mobile" and henceforth unpredictable. The new unpredictability
of the accent motivated these changes and, in some ways, added
new complications to IE declension.
C'mon, you must get it now! Join me. You cannot resist me :P
>To come back to "father", "mother", etc., the key is the suffix
>*-h2ter. It doesn't comply with the usual structure of PIE suffixes, which
>to me suggests that it's ancient rather than that
>it's recent.
Since it's phonologically complex, one could equally say that it's
recent. Your attempt at slicing and dicing the suffix goes with
deaf ears. In ignorance, we could slice it any way we find
convenient. You may note that I'm not even slicing. I'm not making
up IE grammar. I'm using WHAT WE KNOW of IE grammar to find a
solution. We FIND TONNES OF EVIDENCE showing that *-te:r marks the
agent of an action and we FIND *pax- "to feed". We FIND NOTHING to
suggest that *-x (1ps) was used in the manner you suggest.
No go, Mig. Nice try. Let's get serious now.
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp