Re: [tied] Nominative: A hybrid view

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
wrote:

>
> Jens:
> >We have been arguing over the finer shades of IE inflectional

endings,

> >and when my opponent quoted "IE ablative *-od" with a short -o-

and

> >a voiced *-d I just had to say, hey, this is not the level we're

discussing

> >on.
>
> More rhetorics and irrelevancies.
>
> If *-d and *-t are interchangeable as you claim, then you can't

object

> to me writing *-d. Secondly, since we both agree that a thematic

vowel

> in *o suggests voicing, we should both agree that *-d is _voiced_,

not

> voiceless, in the ablative. If you do not agree, you undermine the

basis

> of your precious voiced *-s which you say must be voiced because

of *o.

> We should also be agreeing that the thematic *e in *-e-t(i) of the

3ps

> shows that *-t is in fact _voiceless_ for the same reason!
>
> So your denial of a contrast between *-t and *-d is shockingly

chaotic.

> You've contradicted yourself hundredfold. Congratulations.

This is not correct: /-d/ and /-t/ are not interchangeable
(neutralized) in PIE, but they are in Indo-Iranian and in Italic. It
is not correct that the "thematic vowel rule" giving /o/ before
[+voice] works also for vowels that are part of the desinences; the
ending of the 3pl is /-ent/, but the thematic variant is /-ont/, the
latter to be analyzed as -o- (pre-voice variant of -e-/-o-) + zero-
grade of /-ent/.

The ending of the ablative is reduced to a bare dental stop in the
personal pronouns: Vedic mát (or mád, as it is often quoted) 'from
me', and likewise tvát, asmát, yus.mát; also Latin me:d, te:d, se:d,
the last retained into Classsical Latin as 'but', but originally
meaning 'from itself'. That indicates that the o-stem ablative *-o-
at is somehow a restored form, perhaps a renewed juxtaposition of
the stem with a postposition *at identical with OCS ot 'from'.

I therefore assume (but cannot prove) that a form like *(h1)éti 'in
addition, furthermore' is also in origin an ablative, consisting of
the sten *(h1)e- + zero-grade of /-at/, i.e. /-t/ alone, + the
deictic -i of locatival forms; it would then mean 'after it,
thereafter', which is still pretty much what Skt. áti, Gr. éti and
Lat. et mean.

If the adverb *(h1)ét, *(h1)éti contains the ablative marker, then
that marker was underlyingly voiceless. That must be assumed to
uphold the magnificent rule.

> And I don't want to petty about the vowel quantity because it is
> observed to be short as Eva has even kindly pointed out. Even

Miguel

> agrees with *-od as evidenced by:
>
> http://home.planet.nl/~mcv/PPIE/PPIE2.doc
>
> Are all the List members wrong... or is it just you?
> Occam is pointing to you.

I do not know what you are talking about; I'll go look.

Jens