Re: [tied] The sectors of ablaut.

On Sun, 11 May 2003 01:44:43 +0000, Jens Elmegård Rasmussen
<jer@...> wrote:

>I find the analysis *mu:s- (as opposed to *muHs-) insufficiently
>motivated. The lack of ablaut could be secondary. I know of no sure
>roots with basic vocalisms /i/ or /u/ (long or short).

Certainly there's no lack of them in the pronouns: *ís, *tú, *yús.

>> >Endings may have any vocalism, but only short: /e, o, a, i, u/.
>>
>> I'm trying to think of an ending with /a/... What are you
>referring
>> to?
>
>The allative of Hittite, and fossilized adverbs retaining this in
>other languages: Gk. aná, katá, khamá-i; Gk. par-á : Lat. pr-a-e.

I'd have to think about that. I've always assumed the Hittite
allative was from *-o, and I interpret khamái as *g^hm.mái, from
*dhg^hmh2á(i), i.e. a form of the collective *dhg^hómh2 (> *dhg^hó:m)
declined in the dat/loc _with_ the collective particle *h2 (as opposed
to *dhg^hém(i) without *h2). But I have no explanation for the
prepositions aná, katá, pará or prae.

>> But the o-stem endings select *o before a subsequently reduced
>vowel
>> (*-o-esyo > *-osyo). Why not analyze *sen-éh1-?
>
>No, I would rank *-osyo among the cases of generalization of *-o- in
>o-stem substantives, i.e. on a par with sbst. instr. *-o-h1 : pron.
>*-e-h1.

We cannot see whether Ins. -o: is from -oh1 or -o:h1. For reasons of
symmetry, I prefer an analysis:

TV-rule zero-grade outcome
Gen. *-ó-&syo *-ósyo *-ósyo
Loc. *-ó-&i *-ói *-ói
Abl. *-ó-ot *-óot *-ó:t
Dat. *-o-éi *-oéi *-ó:i
Ins. *-o-ét *-oét *-ó:h1

>The e-form is seen in pronouns like Goth. this, hwis; OCS
>c^eso, OPr. stesse; Lat. eius, Welsh eidd-aw; Gk. té-o, Av. cahiia.
>This points to *esyo, *tesyo, *kWesyo.

We've discussed this before. *esyo from *is and *kWesyo from *kWis
(besides *kWosyo from *kWos) are perfectly acceptable, but we don't
have a pronoun +ti- to give *tesyo, so I prefer to see *tesyo as
analogical, like Polish <tego> (for +<togo>) after <czego>.

>*séno-s is one of the best-known thematic stems of IE. If you don't
>like it, take albe:re. The point (first noted by Watkins) is that
>both thematic and athematic stems form statives in *-eh1-, which can
>then be analyzed as *-e-h1- for them., and as *-C-eh1- for
>athematics. That this is true is shown by the corresponding present
>which (in my own analysis) have the forms *-e-h1-yé/ó- and *-h1-yé/ó-
> respectively.

I don't have the details of the Balto-Slavic i: and e:-stems (which I
suppose you're referring to) in my head, but I'll assume your analysis
is correct. But what if the stative suffix was *-h1eh1?

thematic sén-e-h1h1 > *séne:- / *sének-
sen-e-h1h1-yé- > *séne:ye- / séneky-
athematic men-h1éh1 > *mn.né:-
men-h1h1h-yé > *mn.:nyé-


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