Re: Laryngeal theory as an unnatural

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
wrote:

>
> Richard:
> >>As I said repeatedly over and over, the "strengthening"
> >>occurs in **PARADIGMATIC** alternations! Are compounds extensions

of

> >>declensional paradigms in your mind?
> >
> >Yes! We are talking allomorphs here.
>
> Well, last time I checked there is no "compound case". Just
> the regular accusative, genitive, ablative, etc.

The construct case in Hebrew is similar, though it is marked for
number.

> So as far
> as I'm concerned, compound words and other derivatives of a
> root have little to do with its own declensional paradigm,
> no matter what you wish to believe for mere arguement's sake.
> The word "doghouse" has nothing to do with the alternation
> seen in "dog/dog's", for example.

Are noun elements in compounds derived from a root or from a _stem_?
I thought they were derived from stems rather than mere roots, though
of course the weak stem ending (-an) is dropped in Old English.

> >Compounds come in three overlapping groups - those you learn
> >as a unit and never analyse, those you learn as a unit but later

analyse,

> >and those you form on the spur of the moment.
>
> Yes, I agree so far. "Goodbye" would be a compound "you
> learn as a unit and never analyse", "doghouse" would be
> perhaps an example of the second and "giddy-goose" is a
> compound I just coined in the heat of the moment.

> >The form of a noun you use in the last type of compound is
> >effectively another inflectional variation, certainly as much
> >as a Latin locative or a vocative. So, if you strengthen a
> >bare form for intelligibility, why wouldn't you do so in a
> >compound created on the fly?
>
> The question is when the compound in question was created.
> An unstrengthened compound might have been created before the
> loss of unstressed schwa,

- my first two types -

> or it may have become automatic to
> drop *-e- in such compounds as part of a new morphological rule
> when creating derivatives during this "post-schwa" stage, or
> it may be a new compound with an analogical loss of *-e- based
> on surviving older compounds.

A sort of construct case!

> However, this is all irrelevant conjecture about some nebulous
> theoretical compound

E.g. the Avestan fs^u- compounds, the compounds containing -bd-
for 'foot',...

>whose parameters you've failed to establish,
> so let me refocus the discussion...
>
> All I am proposing here are two things, so please tell me where
> in the following logical progression you have a problem.
>
> First, zero-grading is the normal result of the loss of
> unstressed schwas in Mid IE -- which is pretty much inarguable
> since such a theoretical Pre-IE loss of vowel caused by stress
> accent appears to be a common-sense conclusion reached by many
> IEists.

I believe even the Poles retained some jers in the interests of
pronounceability.

> Second, I theorize that this rule is not without exception
> -- which again is not illogical since every rule has an
> exception of some kind. A lack of genitives like **pd-os
> shows that this exception does exist and that it happens in
> paradigmatic alternations. Miguel's Armeno-centric genitive
> doesn't make the grade as a true counterexample.

Unless of course this rule is an exceptionless exception to the rule
about having exceptions :)

A mischievous thought: [pt:os] seems more pronounceable than [pdos].

> So if this all follows logically, what on earth are you fighting
> against exactly, Richard? Are you trying to propose the opposite,
> that *-e- was inserted artificially in genitive *pedos somehow?
> (If so, by what rules?)

Where's the verb in your question?

Gordon's paradigmatic vowel constraint seems a plausible rule, though
it does need some work. In particular, its application to Sanskrit
conjunctives may need to be revisited. But is the rule PIE or later,
parallel developments?

Richard.