Jens opens up old wounds of previous debate:
>we have *-om, *-es, *-et, *-ome, *-ete, *-ont no matter where the accent is
>(and no matter how the ablaut grade
>of the rest of the word is),
The example of *-sk^e/o- appears to be the sole rare
example of accented alternating thematic. This combined
with my reasons to view *-ske- as a suffix created late in IE,
makes me reject this statement. The accentuation of these
presents is a late innovation. The alternation of *e/*o
derives from the automatic lengthening of earlier *&
before voiced segments (*&: > *o and *& to *e). This
schwa was never accented, otherwise it would not
have been schwa due to ablaut which operated even
during this earlier stage.
>Even so, there is a little worm in the apple, viz. the nom.sg.
>in *-os. I do not take the easy way out and shout analogy,
As I said, I can meet you half way and explain this as being
caused by an automatic rule of voicing of final non-laryngeal
phonemes. Thus *-s would be pronounced [-z]. This way
we don't need a new phoneme **-z since [z] is an allophone
of *-s and therefore we do not need the added assumption
of phonemic merger. Further we keep the only sensible
etymology of the nominative (< *s&, a general demonstrative
that also later became *so).
>It is well known that the sigmatic nominative have a set of
>strange allomorphs, while the same is not seen in the 2sg of
>the verb.
2ps *-s alternates with *-si. One has final *-s, the other medial
*-s- so any rule of automatic voicing like I propose would be
reestablished in PIE proper as [s] by analogy.
>I can therefore assume that the two s's were once different
>from each other.
This we can agree on but we view the difference differently.
The nominative is final ONLY while the 2ps is not with its
optional indicative suffix. This is the difference.
My solution does not require the assumption of **z and is
therefore more efficient.
>Phonetically I see no reason to assume that the voiced pronunciation of the
>nominative marker was still retained in
>PIE,
We need only state that the allophonic rule of final phonemes
no longer operated in IE proper and that **z never became
a distinct phoneme.
>We disagree a bit over the phonetic rationale; some say it's
>a quantum of lengthening, and that a somewhat longer e became o;
No, that a somewhat longer schwa *& became *o. Similar
voice-based lengthening is widespread and found even in
English. Jens continues to not supply evidence of "tonal"
voicing, nor to be up front with the low incidence of this
phenomenon.
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail