Aquila:
>There is however one thing I do not understand. Why is not
>�ta>�sa>�s>�s possible. Is it simply because it is not observed that
>t becomes s after a stressed wovel in other circumstanses?
Well, of course, I'm speaking in the context of my own theories of pre-IE.
Unfortunately,
since there is no established, detailed thought on how IE came to be as it
is, anything pretty
much goes and people feel unhindered to theorize everything except the
kitchen sink,
even if it defies common sense, using ignorance as an excuse. I use a
different methodology,
the one that opposes the "willy-nilly" method, the one using Occam's Razor
ad nauseum. So
I opt for the simplest solutions as much as I possibly can in order to
formulate my views on
pre-IE.
Based on what I've arrived at thus far, initial or medial *t is not
sibilantized in IndoTyrrhenian,
only final *t is. Linguistic evidence from Uralic and EskimoAleut, both of
which seem to have a
particularly close affinity with each other, more so than between Uralic and
IE, shows that the
plural ending is *-t (occuring _finally_). This ending appears to correlate
nicely with IndoTyr *-c
(IE *-es, Tyrrhenian *-r) and Altaic *-r2, a plural, again both of which
show _final_ phonemes.
Because of the handy penultimate accent rule which is already justified by
explaining away the
hystero-proterodynamic accent patterns, IE *-es can never have had a
terminating vowel simply
because it is unaccented. So this shows us that the t/s correspondance, here
at least, is definitely
in final position.
We know a t/s correspondance doesn't occur initially because there are a
fair amount of instances
already found between Uralic and IE that firmly show an uncomplicated
*t-=*t- correspondance.
The more unavoidable evidence for this includes a 2ps pronoun and a
demonstrative.
That leaves your idea of a medial t/s correspondance, which is also quite
suspect. Since IE has a
2pp in *-te, showing a medial *t which surely corresponds to the *t found in
Uralic's 2pp, perhaps
_you_ should tell _me_ whether this is likely.
So, your assumptions, aside from being unnecessarily complicated, are
baseless as well.
>However, the assumption that an ablative becomes a genitive is actually a
>strenght of the theory.
Your theory opposes Occam's Razor. Therefore, your theory is very weak.
>It is simply a generic fact that ablativic elements tend to develope either
>into a genitive or a
>partitive.
It's an even simpler fact that ablatives need not change at all. The onus is
on you to _prove_
that there was a change. The existence of change is not evidence for change
in this instance.
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail