Re: [tied] IE genitive

On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 19:49:38 +0200 (CEST), Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
<jer@...> wrote:

>>>The i-forms are rather plainly originally enclitics.
>>
>> I see no evidence for that.
>
>The paper of mine on -i- ~ -e-/-o- quoted later in your posting should
>help you do that.

I've read it, but I find it unconvincing. Sorry.

>> My analysis is different. A pronoun like *kWis, *kWesyo has a stem *kW-
>> and "endings" *-is, *-esyo [I quote "endings" because this is plainly
>> the pronoun *is, suffixed]. The stem of *kWos, *kWosyo does end in a
>> vowel, and the paradigm is virtually identical to that of the nominal
>> o-stems. In fact, the structure of these "thematic" forms is in origin
>> the same as that of the "athematic" pronominal forms, except for the
>> stem-final vowel.
>>
>> N *kW + *íz -> *kWis
>> A *kW + *ím -> *kWim
>> G *kW + *ásy(a:) -> *kWesyo
>> DL *kW + *á(i) -> *kWé(sm)i
>> AbI *kW + *át -> *kWéh1
>>
>> N *kWá + *iz -> *kWós
>> A *kWá + *im -> *kWóm
>> G *kWá + *asy(á:) -> *kWósyó
>> DL *kWá + *a(i) -> *kWói
>> AbI *kWá + *at -> *kWóh1
>
>And what is the presence of the -á part supposed to mean?

Good question. The difference in _meaning_ between the i/e and the o
forms of the pronouns in PIE is not very clear. On reflection,
perhaps a better reconstruction for the upper paradigm would be
*kWa-íz, kWa-ím etc. Then it would be simply a matter of choice in
the accentuation of a compound (pronominal base + *is), as in the case
of proterodynamic / hysterodynamic nominal compounds, another matter
that is rather obvious in its implications, but not fully clear in all
its details.

>> the reduplicated aorist has the structure:
>>
>> 0) lengthened reduplication syllable [*R + redupl.] +
>> 1) zero grade / e-grade root +
>> 2) *(p)-
>> 3) stressed thematic vowel
>> 4) endings
>
>This is not correct. The thematic forms must have arisen in the middle
>voice, for there are active forms with reflex of o-grade in Vedic. The
>ablaut of this category was, then, ó/zero just as in the perfect and in
>the intensive.

I know some athematic forms occur, but I'm not aware of o-grade forms
in the reduplicated aorist. Can you give some examples?

>> I now realize that the same rule also explains the peculiar
>> alternation *i ~ *e in the pronoun *is. The root was *i, to which the
>> nominative and accusative endings were directly appended:
>>
>> *í-za > *íz > *í&s > *ís
>> *í-ma > *ím > *í&m > *ím
>>
>> The "absolutive" had the ending *-a:
>>
>> *í-a > *í-(y)a > *íy > *&'y > *éy
>>
>> (This is the origin of Skt. ay-am)
>
>So ayám is not a nominative? How did it come to be used as the
>nom.sg.masc. and only that?

The pre-PIE absolutive is like a nominative without *-s. In the
nouns, we know it as the vocative (in fact *éy is, as expected,
formally identical to an i-stem vocative), and it's in my opinion also
the basis for the nominative plural (absolutive + *es, e.g. i-stem
*-ey-es).

>> The oblique endings were based on the absolutive, but there the accent
>> fell on the "thematic" *á, causing the loss of *i in the oblique:
>>
>> G *i-á-si > *ésy + o
>> DL *i-á-(?)a > *é + (sm)i
>> AI *i-á-ta > *ét > *éh1
>
>What kind of system is this? The only hint of a morphological rule of IE
>stating that the strong cases are formed from a curtailed form of the stem
>used in the rest of the inflection is the appearance of some unexpected
>n's in the inflection of some neuter nouns. I cannot accept this a license
>to assign the same status to any other element one would like to leave
>functionally unaccounted-for.

I'm not sure I understand your objection. The system above is exactly
the same system as I propose for all nominal categories in (pre-)PIE.
A root *pa:d- makes nom. *pá:d-za > *pódz > *pó:ds, acc. *pá:d-ma >
*pódm., absolutive (=vocative) *pá:d-a > *pód. The oblique cases are
based on the absolutive: *pa:dá-si > *pedés > *péds; *pa:dá-a >
*pedé+i > *pédi; *padá-ta > *pedét > [+pédst].

>> So now I have the "thematic" pronouns, the o-stems, the a:-stems, the
>> reduplicated aorist and the *is ~ *esyo alternation neatly regularized
>> by a single soundlaw (*i > 0 / {_é= | é=_}, where = is "morpheme
>> break"). Additionally, the soundlaw may perhaps explain other cases
>> where *i appears to be the "zero grade" of the thematic vowel, as
>> discussed by Jens in his 1988 article "Indo-European ablaut -i ~
>> -e-/-o-".
>
>This is only "neatly regularized" if the underlying system can be
>supported by independent evidence or is in itself so obvious as not to
>need that. I think it fails on both counts. And if it is only conjured up
>to avoid accepting the obvious where "*i appears to be the "zero grade" of
>the thematic vowel", namely that the thematic vowel could once be reduced,
>I guess other people of normal temperament would be most offended by
>seeing such a massive investment of effort in what can then only be a
>negative personal crusade. Being who I am, I express my gratitude instead,
>for few theories have been so intensely debated as my ablaut rules, and it
>indeed feels gratifying that the opposition is forced to such extremes to
>avoid okaying what it's contesting.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

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