It's a rule I was taught in Erlangen in the 70's. Of course it is not
better than the observations on which it is based, but that seems to be a
fair amount: Opposed to athematic 3pl *H1s-ent-i we have thematic 3pl
*bher-o-nt-i with -nt-, not -ent-; opposed to athematic 3sg opt.
*H1s-ieH1-t we have thematic 3sg opt. *bher-o-yH1-t with -yH1-, not
-yeH1-; opposed to statives based on athematic stems like *bhudh-eH1- we
have thematic-based *sene-H1- with -H1-, not -eH1-; and the gen. morpheme
*-os does appear reduced to /-s-/ in the middle of *te-s-yo (what -yo is
is a different matter); incidentally also in the pronominal gen.pl.
*-oy-s-oom (what -oom is is a different matter) and gen.du. *-oH3-s; the
instr.sg *-VH1 is reduced in the pronominal form *te-H1, subst. *-o-H1. I
suspect the athematic 1sg middle secondary ending is *-H2a, while
the thematic primary ending is certainly *-a-H2-i without the desinential
vowel.
The presumed counterexamples you mention are invalid, for the dative *-ey
and the nom.pl. *-es, and endings like *-bhyos, *-bhis, *-su do not
alternate at all. They do indicate, however, that there are several layers
in the morphology, and this rule, like the ablaut in the main, has
obviously ceased to operate at some time before the dissolution of the
protolanguage. But that applies to practically everything we find in the
order of rules.
The rule, first established by others on a purely descriptive basis, is
the natural consequence of the rule of initial accent I claim to have
found for a prestage of the protolanguage.
Jens
On Fri, 18 Apr 2003, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 16:58:35 +0200 (MET DST), Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
> <jer@...> wrote:
>
> >The problem was: Why does the gen.sg. in *-aH2-os
> >which belongs to the class of "a:"-stems whose stem-forming part consists
> >of the thematic vowel *-e/o- + the collective marker *-H2 not reduce the
> >gen. desinence to the zero-grade form /-s/, given the rule that everything
> >following the thematic vowel appears in its reduced form?
>
> What rule is that? As far as I can see, there are unreduced /e/'s and
> /o/'s in the masculine thematic G.sg. (*-o-syo), D.sg. (*-o-ei),
> Ab.sg. (*-o-ot), perhaps I sg. (*-o-eh1), N.pl. (*-o-es), Gpl.
> (*-o-om) and D/Ab pl. (*-o-bhyos).
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>