Re: [tied] IE genitive

On Fri, 9 May 2003, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

> On Thu, 08 May 2003 19:35:37 +0200 (MET DST), Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
> <jer@...> wrote:
>
> >If all stem-final vowels are "thematic vowels", we can account
> >for the noun/pronoun and the verb by the same set of rules, and if not
> >only short, but all thematic suffixes leave their thematic vowels immune
> >to ablaut reduction, we have it all. That a vowel-reducing rule has
> >restrictions in which the position in the word is a factor is not strange
> >in itself. I would guess that the very fact that the position before the
> >flexives is a sheltered one where vowels are not reduced, irrespective of
> >their accentuation (in the output forms), is trying to tell us something.
> >It would be constructive to think out theories about what that might be.
>
> I think the relevant soundlaws are already known. There was a zero
> grade law that reduced unstressed short vowels and shortened long
> vowels

Yes.

> (but not in the svarita --immediately posttonic-- position).

Right, posttonic long vowels are not shortened.

> There was a thematic vowel rule that differentiated thematic vowels
> before voiced segments (resulting in *o) from thematic vowels before
> voiceless segments --including silence-- (resulting in *e).

Yes.

> There was
> an initial stress rule that retracted the stress to the first full
> vowel (*e or *o) in the word.

Yes.

> Finally there was a second zero grade
> rule that further reduced *e, but not *o, in posttonic position.

Almost so: The vowel from which the accent was removed by the initial
accent rule was itself lost. Long posttonic vowels were retained.
Deaccented /e/ (in reduplicated wordforms) was not lengthened, and so was
lost. The reduction product of unaccented *e, which was (the prestage of)
*o, was itself lost if not saved by lengthening. Some new unaccented o's
were created by analogy (acc.sg.).

> I think the thematic vowel survived the first zero grade simply by the
> fact that it was initially always stressed. For nouns such as
> *wl.kWós or verbs such as *tudéti this simply follows from the
> attested facts. For verbs such as *bhéreti or nouns (adjectives) such
> as *néwos this requires original long grade (vr.ddhi) of the root
> (**bha:r-á-t(i) > *bharát(i) > *bhéret(i); **na:w-á-z > **nawá:z >
> *néwos), which is in itself not a problem (Sanskrit .

Other saved vowels do not alternate like the thematic vowel, so this
doesn't help.

>
> In the case of *wl.kWós or *tudéti we also have no problem with the
> "second" zero-grade rule, but such a problem does arise with e.g.
> post-initial-accent *bhéreti, which should have given +bhérti.
>
> My solution lies in the re-evaluation of the vowel qualities/
> quantities in combination with a slightly different working of the
> zero-grade rules (where zero-grade rule I becomes a reduction-rule,
> creating schwa's, and the real zero-grade (schwa > 0) is the work of
> zero-grade rule II).
>
> Imagine a pre-PIE vowel system consisting of:
>
> /a/ /i/ /u/
> /a:/ /i:/ /u:/
>
> both stressed and unstressed.
>
> The vowel reduction rule reshaped this to:
>
> stressed svarita unstressed
> a > &' o: &
> i > (y)&' (y)e: (y)&
> u > (w)&' (w)o: (w)&
> a: > ó: a
> i: > (y)é: i > (y)&
> u: > (w)ó: u > (w)&

Why would stressed vowels be reduced? It seems to pull the carpet from
under the initial insight that Schwundablaut is accent-governed.

>
> Disregarding the labializing and palatalizing effects of former *i(:)
> and *u(:), this amounts to a system where we have:
>
> stressed unstressed
> &' &
> a
> ó: o(:)
> é: e(:)
>
> The initial accent rule turns all cases of /a/ (from unstressed /a:/)
> into stressed /á/, and reduces any following stressed /&'/ (from
> stressed /á/, /í/, /ú/) to unstressed /&/.
>
> We now have:
> stressed unstressed
> &' &
> á
> é: e(:)
> ó: o(:)
>
> Stressed /&'/ and /á/ merge as /é/, and the zero grade rule then turns
> all unstressed /&/'s into zero, giving:
>
> stressed unstressed
> é
> é: e
> ó o
>
>
> This accounts for most noun patterns:
> root: **sám-z, G. **sam-ás -> *séms, *smés
> root static: **pá:d-z, G. **pa:d-ás -> *pó:ds, *péds
> PD: **h2ák-ma:n-z, G. **h2ak-mán-a:s -> *h2ák^mo:n, *&2k^ménos
> HD: *pa-h2tár-z, G. *pa-h2tar-ás -> *p&2té:r, *p&2trés
> PD static: **wá:d-an, G. *wa:d-án-a:s -> *wódr, *wédnos
> collective: **wad-á:n-h2, G. *wad-a:n-ás -> *udó:r, *udéns
>
> For instance, the G. **pa:d-ás becomes **pad&'s (reduction rule), then
> **pád&s (initial accent rule) then *péds (zero-grade rule).
> Likewise **wa:d-án-a:s > **wad&'nos > **wád&nos > *wédnos, or
> **wad-a:n-ás > **w&dan&'s > **w&dán&s > *udéns.

This looks like all the rules I made twenty-five years ago, with only
slight deviations. You just use a different notation for not-yet-surfaced
full vowels.

>
> To explain the thematic forms, all we need is to suppose that the
> thematic vowel /&/ was affected not only by a following voiced segment
> (giving /&:/ > /o/), but also by a following voiceless segment (giving
> strengthened **/a/ > /e/, the same sound that resulted from unstressed
> **/a:/). In other words, the "thematic vowel rule" is a rule that
> turns morpheme-final schwa's into "clear" vowels.

It processes stem-final (not word-final) vowels. There are no other
stem-final vowels than the thematic vowels.

>
> We then have:
>
> reduct. them-vow. init-acc. zero
> **tawd-á-t t&wd&'t t&wdát t&wdét tudét
> **tawd-a-mán t&wd&m&'n t&wda:m&'n t&wdóm&n tudómen (!)

The tudati type is not that old. This is otiose.

>
> **bha:r-á-t bhar&'t bharát bhéret bhéret
> **bha:r-a-mán bhar&m&'n bhara:m&'n bhérom&n bhéromen (!)
>
> Note that the ending -men (-mes) is also unaffected by zero-grade, but
> that might be analogical after normal stressed -mén (-més).

It's rather a matter of what that ending really contained. The same
surprise is seen in the other 1./2. du./pl. endings, act. and mid.

Jens