Re: [tied] IE genitive

On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 02:06:29 +0200 (MET DST), Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
<jer@...> wrote:

>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-;

The other plural or dual forms (*-o-mes ~ *-o-men, *-e-te, etc.) do
not reduce the vowel. In the 3rd pl., *bhero-ent may have been
contracted to *bhero:nt, and then shortened again to *bheront (-V:CC >
-VCC, as in the nominal nt-stems).

>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);

I prefer to reconstruct *tosyo (the first /o/ being the thematic
vowel, lengthened to /o/ before the 'ending' -esyo, where the /e/ was
indeed reduced by zero grade: toesyo > tosyo: I'm not sure whether the
accentuation was *tó-esyo or *to-esyó). The athematic pronominal type
would be represented by e.g. *kWesyo (from *kWís, not *kWós) or indeed
*esyo itself (Nom.masc. *is).

>incidentally also in the pronominal gen.pl.
>*-oy-s-oom (what -oom is is a different matter) and gen.du. *-oH3-s;

But that's not the thematic vowel in the G.du., is it?

>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.

I didn't mention *-bhis or *-su. I do think the dative *-ei is in
origin an Ablaut variant of locative *-i (stressed *-é(i) vs.
unstressed *-e(i)), the same as instrumental *-éh1 (< **-ét) vs.
ablative *-ot.

In none of the examples given do I see any special significance vis à
vis zero grade for the position _after_ the thematic vowel. When a
stressed ending is added after the thematic vowel, the vowel of the
ending is not reduced (1pl. **-o-més, Dsg. **-o-éi, etc.), and the
retraction of the stress back to the thematic vowel (1pl. *-ómes) is
secondary. An unstressed /e/ in the ending *is* reduced, as it is
everywhere else (ath. opt. 3pl. -yh1-ér, etc.).

The thematic vowel _itself_ does of course behave most peculiarly with
regards to the zero grade rule.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...