Re: [tied] Nominative: A hybrid view

Jens,

thank you very much for the explanations. I skimmed through
your message and I think it will need some careful attention, so I
will print it out and take it home (I am a poor student who has no
pc at home...). I will get back to you as soon as I can.

Thanks again.

Eva

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
<jer@...> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 26 May 2003, fortuna11111 wrote:
>
> > Okay Jens, back to my questions, since you wanted to

answer :-)

> >
> > > > They are listed as separate phonemes.
> > >
> > > Yes; what I mean is that /d/ and /t/ were even opposed to

each

> > other in
> > > word-final position in PIE, or at least in that prestage of it in
> > which
> > > the "thematic vowel" was split up into /e/ and /o/ depending

on the

> > > phonetic character of the following segment (being /o/

before

> > [+voice],
> > > /e/ elsewhere).
> >
> > Question: who says this and where? Or if it is your theory,

what is

> > it based on. I just have a problem with mere statements, I

usually

> > want to know where they come from. Nothing new to

science, or to

> > journalism, for that matter.
>
> The short answer: I say this. I have presented it in a chapter of

my book

> Studien zur Morphophonemik der indogermanischen

Grundsprache, Innsbruck

> 1989. A shorter statement is contained in my contribution to the

VIII.

> Fachtagung (Leiden): Beekes, Lubotsky, Weitenberg (eds.),

Rekonstruktion

> und Relative Chronologie, Akten der VIII. Fachtagung der

Idg.Gs., publ.

> Innsbruck 1992.
>
> That was who and where. I have repeated it many times, but
> these references will be the easiest ones to follow.
>
> Now for why: The "thematic vowel" is a special subfield of IE

ablaut. The

> stem-final vowel of thematic verbs and of pronouns alternate in

a way all

> its own, being now /e/, now /o/, never zero like the other IE

vowels. Its

> alternation is independent of the accent: 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), cf. e.g. the types *bher-e/o-

with root

> accent and the type in *-sk^e/o- which is accented on the suffix.

It is

> common knowledge that the decisive element in the selection

of the two

> phenotypes -e- and -o- is the phonetic character of the

following segment;

> that is not my discovery, Saussure and Hirt agreed on that (and

little

> else). But it seems to have been too much for the entire field to

pin down

> the decisive factor. Since we have *-om in the 1sg and the

acc.sg., it is

> clear that /m/ takes -o-; but 2sg has -es, and the nom.sg. has

-os, so it

> ceases to look promising. Still, all the rest looks fine, even finer

than

> anybody had apparently realized:
> If we sift the material and discard analogical forms as

irrelevant,

> we may be left with a core of conclusive facts. The o-stem

nouns have

> apparently given up the alternation e/o, having almost only -o-,

except

> for the word-final vocative in *-e and the a-coloured fem./coll. in

*-a-h2

> (which apparently cannot be based on *-o-h2, but must reflect

earlier

> *-e-h2 as shown by Beekes in the article with the funny title

H2O in Die

> Sprache 18 from 1972). But the pronoun has retained much of

the old

> alternation and in this agrees very precisely with the verb. What

we find

> is this:
>
> We have -e- in
> *-e (vocative domine, imperative lege)
> *-es(-) (gen. *tes-yo 'des', 2sg *bhere-s)
> *-et(-) (3sg *bheret, mid. *-eto, 2pl *-ete)
> *-eh1 (instr. *te-h1 in Goth /the:/, denominative stative

*sene-h1-ye/o-)

> *-eh2 > *-ah2 coll./fem. *new-ah2; also 1sg.mid. *bher-a-h2-i.
>
> We have -o- in
> *-o-e > *-o:(w) (du. *to:[w] 'those two')
> *-o-m (acc. *to-m, 1sg *bhero-m, 1pl *bhero-me, 1pl.mid.

*bhero-medh&2,

> mid.ptc. *bhero-mh1no-)
> *-o-nt (3pl *bhero-nt, act.ptc. *bhero-nt-s)
> *-o-w- (1du *bhero-we, 1du.mid. *bhero-wedh&2)
> *-o-y(-) (nom.pl. *to-y 'they', ntr.du. *to-yh1, opt. *bhero-yh1-t)
> *-o-r (impersonal *bhero-r in OIr. -berar; local adv. *to-r in Goth.
> /thar/ 'there')
> *-o-d (ntr. *to-d 'that');
>
> less certain is the PIE status of:
> *-o-dh- (local adv. like Gk. pothi 'where, hothi 'there where')
> *-o-bh- (local adv.: Hitt. kuwapi 'where')
>
> In these two lists it is very easy to see that -e- is not followed by
> anything voiced, while -o- constantly is. I guess this is so plain

that it

> cannot be fortuitous, but must be the active factor. 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, for it is also the form of pronouns

(rel. *yo-s

> in Gk. ho-s, Phryg. io-s, Celtiberian io-s). Instead I take a closer

look

> at the two s-morphemes. 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. Specifically, the lengthening seen in the animate nom.sg.

(as Skt.

> dyau-s) has no counterpart in the 2sg (2sg ipf. a-s'rno-s). I

agree with

> Szemerenyi in ascribing the lengthening effect to the

nominative marker,

> but I find no evidence of the same effect in the 2sg marker,

although both

> surface af /-s/. I can therefore assume that the two s's were

once

> different from each other. And since the nom. marker makes

the thematic

> vowel take the form -o- I assume that the nominate marker

was a voiced *-z

> at the time of the change in the thematic vowel, while that of the

2sg was

> not voiced since it takes -e-. Simplicissimus just asks: if they

were

> different anyway, why not use that to our advantage?

Phonetically I see no

> reason to assume that the voiced pronunciation of the

nominative marker

> was still retained in PIE, so I suggest that the merger of *-s

and *-z

> into *-s should be placed in some prestage of the

protolanguage we reach

> by comparative reconstruction - but within the time span

covered by some

> of the operations of internal reconstruction we can make on the

basis of

> the already-reconstructed PIE.
> This e/o rule which applies only to the thematic vowel (which

is

> descriptively simply a "vowel in stem-final position", since all

other

> stems end in original consonants) has been accorded little

attention,

> although divergent formulations are not wanting, every

handbook contains

> one that just does not fit the facts. I refrain from pronouncing

my

> opinion of the individual alternatives: the writers are my friends,

and

> I'd like to keep it that way.
> On this list, my e/o rule has been accorded very wide

acceptance. We

> disagree a bit over the phonetic rationale; some say it's a

quantum of

> lengthening, and that a somewhat longer e became o; I am

now more in

> favour of a tonal interpretation, thereby approaching the old

stand taken

> by Hirt. It *is* at least an increase in sonority induced by the

following

> voiced segment by whatever exact avenue.
> That the e/o rule works only for the thematic vowel is a

problem of its

> own. I'll leave it be for the moment.
>
> >
> > The two phonemes, however, *are* neutralized in
> > > Indo-Iranian and Italic.
> >
> > Examples? In what way are they neutralized?
>
> Word-final *-t has become -d in Italic (Osc. kum-bened

'convenit', Old

> Latin esed 'esset'), and so had *-d. In Avestan both yield the

special

> dental (transcribed by underlined t, according to Gauthiot

representing an

> unexploded dental stop), in Old Persian they are both lost, and

in

> Sanskrit they both surface as /d/ before a voiced initial in the

following

> word, and as /t/ elsewhere.
>
> > It is often forgotten, even in historical
> > > grammars, that Sanskrit is incapable of showing whether a

final

> > stop was
> > > voiced or voiceless, since the opposition is neutralized in

*all*

> > sandhi
> > > positions.
> >
> > That should be so, assuming what you said above about

voice/voiceless

> > is true or at least a point of scientific agreement.
>
> I think it's true, but it's not agreed upon. I object when

ambiguous

> evidence is being construed to disprove it. And that was what

was going to

> happen in case the ablative ending got accepted as "*-od".
>
>
> [...]
> > If *-d and *-t are opposed to each other
> > > in PIE, there is a phonemic contrast even in that position.
> >
> > Okay, to make it clear, what do you mean by opposed? Do

you mean

> > exclusive? And *in what position* exclusive?
>
> That both exist and are not confused.
>
> >
> > A form like
> > > *kWod > PGmc. *hwat (Germ. was) would appear to reflect

the old

> > voicing,
> > > if in a funny way.
> >
> > How does it reflect it? How can you draw a conclusion from

just one

> > example reflecting something? It could be so coincidentially.

Don't

> > get me wrong, but in the area of IE linguistics it is full of

people

> > who are simply being awfully creative. One has to be careful.
>
> You do right in asking directly. Much nonsense has been

handed down

> because teachers did not address questions, and the next

questions were

> not even asked. Am I overly naive in seeing a difference in

Germanic

> between Goth. thata with a particle added to *tod as opposed

to the reflex

> of *-ti in the prs. <bairith>? Or between Skt. id-am 'it' as

opposed to

> prs. bharat-i, ipv. bharat-u? I take this to indicate that *-d and *-t

had

> not merged. I could be wrong about that, but not so easily

about the point

> I really need to be right, viz. that there was a contrast between

*-d and

> *-t at some time in the prehistory of PIE.
>
> [... On the tematic ablative]
>
> > > It apparently also matches the gen.sg. of o-stems in

Balto-Slavic,

> > > Lith. vil~ko, OCS vlUka.
> >
> > I am not sure about Ablative in OCS. I will look it up. I

suspect

> > it is just another borrowed genitive ending, as in Sanskrit.
>
> You are potentially up against quite an army here. The BSl.

gen. also

> covers the syntactic functions of the ablative. If it is an old

genitive,

> there is *no* basis for it that has even been suggested as far

as I am

> aware.
>
> >
> > Recently the Celtiberian form has been found to
> > > be -uz (perhaps with a fricative d at the end).
> >
> > Who and where?
>
> By Francisco Villar. The quick reference is an Innsbrucker

Vortrag (the

> thin white papers). As always, it's in Meier-Bruegger's

bibliography:

> F.V.: A new interpretation of Celtiberian grammar. Innsbruck

1995.

>
> >
> > It may aso be identical
> > > with the Greek adverb type seen in kalo:~s 'beautifully'

(except

> > for the
> > > -s which may have been taken over from other

stem-classes which

> > used the
> > > genitive form also as ablative).
> >
> > You can have an -os in all possible other cases. As with the

other

> > stems in Sanskrit, which have an ablative coinciding with

genitive

> > (which was -os/-es in PIE). You take a single word in Greek

and draw

> > theories from it? I just don't get it, sorry.
>
> The ablative is being used as an adverb in many cases.

Common opinion is

> divided on the question whether the Gk. adverbs in -o:s reflect

old

> instrumental or old ablatives. Since the instr. has acute tone in
> Lithuanian, the circumflex of the endstressed adverbs can be

derived

> directly from the form of the ablative. In both cases, the IE form

in

> *-oH1 or *-oat (vel sim.) need the addition of an *-s to produce

the Greek

> form. If it matters where the *-s comes from I find it easier to

assume

> that it comes from another ablative form. And all other stem

classes had

> ablatives ending in *-s.
>
> >
> > And another important point is, I am usually very busy, while

the

> > volume of the list is challenging. So I do not always have

time to

> > go in depth with questions and comments, etc. In such

cases I just

> > say: le'me read it somewhere to save us both the time. If I

don't

> > agree in the end, I will tell ya. That was the portion of
> > Hochenglisch for today :-)
>
> We're in the same boat here. Thank you for your time.
>
> Jens