Re: [tied] Nominative: A hybrid view

Jens:

>This is not correct: /-d/ and /-t/ are not interchangeable
>(neutralized) in PIE, but they are in Indo-Iranian and in Italic.

As I say, there's a contrast between *-t and *-d. I wasn't
talking about IIr or Italic. _You_ are, for some reason. At
least you've finally learned about ablative *-od.

>It is not correct that the "thematic vowel rule" giving /o/ before
>[+voice] works also for vowels that are part of the desinences;

False. The athematic /-ent/ is accented and therefore cannot
originate from the thematic vowel that was originally schwa, which
was always unaccented (which was why it was schwa). This athematic
ending shows the original vocalism from early Late IE *-en(-t&). The
later retraction of accent (acrostatic regularisation) on thematic stems
produced *-&nt. Since schwa lengthens before voiced *n, we then
get *-&:nt and then finally *-ont.

>The ending of the ablative is reduced to a bare dental stop in the
>personal pronouns: [...] 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'.

Yes. I guess we _can_ agree on something.

>I therefore assume (but cannot prove) that a form like *(h1)�ti 'in
>addition, furthermore' is also in origin an ablative,

How can I argue with someone that confuses assumption with
proof?? It's a nice theory, to be sure, but this is not an assumption
one absolutely needs to assume.

>If the adverb *(h1)�t, *(h1)�ti contains the ablative marker, then
>that marker was underlyingly voiceless.

If (a BIG if) the *-t- is ablative, the oscillation of *et and *eti would
ensure that the stop is voiceless just as in the 3ps indicative and
non-indicative.


- gLeN

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail