Jens:
>Well, fine up to a point. The basic argument against accepting the
>thematic vowel as "old" (meaning as old as the ablaut or older) is
>the idea that they would have been lost if they were that old. That makes
>sense if (1) there is a rule deleting all unaccented
>short vowels, (2) nothing else develops into the thematic vowel,
>and (3) the thematic vowel is always unaccented. Prerequisite (2)
>is unknown, and (3) is false. I'll come back to that.
The "thematic vowel" that I refer to involves ablaut alternations
in *e and *o. This phenomenon is the tell-tale sign of the earlier
schwa *& and is most usually unaccented. So accented "thematic
vowels" don't really count since they are mostly from eLIE genitival
constructs that never had contained *& because they never lost the
original accent on the ultimate syllable. (3) is not as false as
you think it is, (2) is known, and (1) is true except in some
special cases: Paradigmatic Resistance and Suffix Resistance.
The schwa *& which is behind the thematic vowel surfaced in
genitival derivatives with an accent shifted to the initial,
in unstressed particles, in verbal suffixes and vowel-final
monosyllabic suffixes that carried on MIE *& (Suffix Resistance),
and in "animatized" suffixes (eg: the animate collective *-&x from
inanimate *-x). It is a seperate vowel from the others of its time:
*i, *u, *e and *a.
It has little to do with Mid IE's unstressed vowels since these
were mostly zeroed by Late IE. Schwa did NOT arise in cases of
Paradigmatic Resistance (eg: *p&t:as& > *pet:as, not *p&t:as which
would otherwise exhibit lengthening before a later *d, producing
**podos). The schwa only surfaced in special environments and could
not be zerograded further. However it could be fullgraded to *e in
paradigm alternations.
Evidently, thematic vowels as I define them above appear to have
"survived" ablaut, if we go by your scenario. However, by granting
them ancient status, we obliterate the regular penultimate accent
that explains the later mobile accent and we complicate tenfold
the processes under which Mid IE had lost unstressed vowels,
among others. The loss of unstressed vowel becomes a suspiciously selective
rule. We also end up with a much looser syllable
structure, allowing for two consecutive vowels, which surfaces in
your thought experiments below.
>There is very solid evidence that the thematic vowel meant something, [...]
>It formed ordinals from cardinals, and subjunctives from injunctives, both
>without any apparent assistance.
This isn't solid evidence. Its employment in derivation is so wide
and varied, as by your admission above, that there can be no
reasonable meaning attributed to it, nor has there. It's weak.
>That's what we find in adjectives in *-r�- and participles in *-t�-
>and in present stems in *-sk^�/�-. Accent on this vowel is here
>feeding the ablaut.
Yes, the accent _is_ feeding the ablaut, because adjectives like
those in *-ro- and *-to- are descendants of genitival derivatives
in eLIE *-as. They have nothing to do with thematic vowels because
they never contained *& at any time in their existence.
Verb stems in *-ske- are late and only mimick other verb formations
where zerograding of the stem already had occurred. I'd say that
an accented alternating thematic vowel is unusual. Another thing
unusual about the affix is its -CCV- pattern which lacks a coda
despite being accented. It seems reasonable to presume then that
this is not an ancient suffix because it doesn't follow the rules
we attribute to a more ancient layer of IE.
Concerning thematic alternation:
>I don't know why you are so bent on calling it length, though.
Lengthening by voiced segments takes less pleading than rounding
by voiced segments. Such lengthening is strongly backed by
real-world examples. I don't see any evidence for rounding on the
other hand and must at the very least be less common.
Therefore "lengthening" (plus vowel shift) is a more logical
theory. It works in coordination with the vowel shift *a > *o that
I'm already aware of. Thus we may theorize that lengthened *&: first
merged with *a before finally becoming *o while *& merged with *e
(or *A > *a when uvularized).
>I'm struggling to follow ... Many, very many, thematic stems are
>not stressed on the initial. What is funny here? You funning us?
Yes, I'm aware. I ain't funnin' nobody. However, I suspect that we
might be viewing "thematic stems" differently, judging by your
comments on the stems *kWi- and *kWo-, both of which you call
"thematic" (which is true in some ways, and not in others). In
the quote you were responding to, I'm using "thematic" to mean
only those stems ending in any other vowel other than semivowels
*i and *u. If I understand my IE grammar well enough, that leaves
only stems in accented or unaccented *-o-. Only unaccented *-o-
applies to the topic of eLIE *&.
>Ironically, if the thematic structure is subjected to normal
>ablaut, it comes out the same: Pre-ablaut *perk^-sk^�-t, 3pl
>*perk^-sk^e-�nt would become first *prk^sk^�-t, *prk^sk^e-�nt; then, with
>the initial accent rule (which I see is accepted by
>Miguel) *prk^sk^�-t, *prk^sk^�-ent; then, with continued ablaut
>reduction, *prk^sk^�-t, *prk^sk^�-nt; whence finally, with the
>thematic vowel rule, PIE *prk^sk^�-t, *prk^sk^�-nt. The fact that
>the thematic vowel is never followed by the accent means that it
>must date back to a time preceding the initial accent rule.
You see, I object to the syllabics of the above (eg: *perkskeent ??).
I really don't see allowance for two consecutive vowels in any stage
of preIE. The further back in time I go, the more I see *CV(C)CV(C)-
as the norm, the same norm used by Uralic and Altaic, if not also by
proto-Tyrrhenian. It looks to me that *VV was only allowed in the
latest form of IE (note Miguel and I on case endings with so-called
"circumflex" accentuation). Your reconstruction is too indulgent.
That's perhaps another reason to have thematic vowels postdate
quantitative ablaut -- The rules for syllabic shape become much
less liberal for armchair linguists. Yet another reason is that it
makes no sense why your preAblaut *perk^-sk^e-�nt shouldn't become
*perk^-sk^-�nt instead, after what I presume to be the stage
representing late Mid IE and the loss of unstressed vowels. ??!
>Now, ablaut worked also *after* the initial accent rule, because it
>was fed by it.
No, because accented thematic vowels as per your examples above do
not derive from *& unless we lazily allow an accented *& as well
(but then, on what firm basis?).
More vowels, more freedom for syllabic shape, more possibilities,
and before you know it, the language is all over the place because
we weren't diligent enough to reconstruct it properly using the
least amount of hypotheses.
>Oh yeah? I must conclude the opposite.
Always the opposer. Congratulations: You are proof that world peace
is not achievable >:)
>Why would a genitive give up its -s and create a verbal stem out of
>the stump? What is a truncated genitive doing in *bh�ro-nti 'they
>carry'?
No, no. First of all, the verbal thematic vowel derives from the
same vowel *& as in the noun, but it originates from something a
little different. The mLIE equivalent of *bH�r-o-nt-i just after
Acrostatic Regularization was *bH�r&-nt. The thematic vowel here
derives from the default 3ps *bH�r&-t which before the add-on *-t
was seen as "endingless" in eLIE *bH�r& (*& survives by
Paradigmatic Resistance, note 1pp bHer�m&s, and by Suffix
Resistance because it is a monosyllabic suffix). So in verbs
with 3ps *&, the schwa spread by analogy to all persons to create
the "thematic" verb.
Getting away from verbs, the eLIE genitival construct was used to
convey an adjective or a descriptive noun. It was as a descriptive
noun that the stem came to have initial accent, thereby ending in a
reduced *-&s, while the correlating adjective retained accent on
the final syllable *-as. The accent change was a simple way of
distinguishing inflected noun from an originally uninflected
adjective.
At this point, the genitival constructs both nominal and adjectival
were misanalysed as vowel-final stems plus nominative ending *-s,
giving noun stems ending in *-&- and adjectives in *-a-. So "a
genitive gives up its -s and creates a verbal stem out of the
stump" because genitival constructs just looked like animate
nominatives. The adjective became inflected after this and came to
agree in case with the noun it modified using its "stumpy" remains.
>I see no acrostatic regularization in the thematic class (I suppose
>you mean structures like *bh�re-ti and *w�rg^o-m by that, but I do
>not feel sure about it, for it means disregarding *prk^-sk^�-ti,
>*gWm.-y�-ti, *wid-H1-y�-ti and the noun types *yug-�-m, *k^m.t�-m,
>*H2ug-r�-s, *mr.-t�-s, even mid.ptc. *dhugh-m.H1n�-s, and can you
>really have overlooked all that?).
No, I didn't overlook it. Your list gives me a lot to talk about.
Verbs in *-ske- and *-ye- were formed only in the latest stage of
Late IE. They only follow ablaut patterns because they mimick other
derivatives with zerograded verb stem that are ancient enough to
have operated under the ablaut. Nouns like *yug�m, *xugr�s and
*mrt�s are genitival constructs out of the eLIE case endings *-as
and *-am, never containing *&. The numeral *kmtom is actually short
for */komtx kmtom/ "tens of tens", and *xugr�s & *mrt�s are nouns
of a late type derived directly from adjectival forms, hence their
ultimate accentuation. This *dHugHm.hn�s is again an adjectival
form which again connects with the genitival constructs.
>If Indo-European stem-formation is described for what it shows, it should
>be accepted that a stem could also end in a vowel.
>[...] This of course begs the question: What is so special about
>stem-final position that a vowel positioned there will go haywire
>and make this kind of spectacle of itself? I do not know,[...]
It is the very reason that the stem-final vowel acts in different,
otherwise inexplicable ways that shows us that we CANNOT accept
that the thematic vowel predates the same quantitative ablaut it
defies.
I fail to understand how vaguely waving the thematic vowel to
"the dark corners of prehistory" should give us the coherent
understanding that I'm actively seeking via my own account.
I don't see that coherent explanation coming from you.
>It is the opposite that follows logically: Since even "the earliest rules
>we know" produce structures that were not hit by
>the thematic vowel alternation, such structures missed the train - they are
>too young.
But this relies on an assumption that thematic vowels are ancient,
without first showing that this is so. Given the big picture, it
seems to make all the rules that much more complicated and defies
Occam's Razor. So it can't be logical.
After giving examples of the thematic vowel evolving into PIE:
>Now, accent has no part in it, and a three-quarter-genitive appearing as a
>verbal stem is somehow unappealing to me. And I wonder how pronouns can
>have *t�m, *t�d, *t�y with the same rule
>applying to a monosyllables, if it is supposed to apply only to
>unaccented vowels.
One, the verbal stem has nothing to do with the genitive. The End.
Two, the pronouns are semi-enclitic, that is, they were typically
unaccented in a sentence unless accent was necessary for emphasis
or whatever other reasons I haven't thought of yet.
So, the paradigm of *to- is largely built on unaccented forms with
*t&- which derive from the accented forms in *ta-. Likewise, *kWo-
is built on forms with earlier unaccented *kW&- (accented *kWe-,
not to be confused with forms in *kWi- whose differences I shall
explain some day if everybody is nice to me :P).
In English, "this" is pronounced [DIs] in isolation but I might say
[(D)&s] in a typical everyday sentence that I speak and [(D)iz]
for "these". Probably a thousand years from now, linguists will
wonder why Postmodern English case endings seem attached to
unstressed forms rather than stressed forms. So anyways, back to IE,
*tesyo is from unstressed *t&sy&: (which derives from the form
containing stress, *ta-sy&:).
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963