Re: [tied] SMOK^WR (ex Re: Nominative: A hybrid view)

----- Original Message -----

From: Miguel Carrasquer

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 11:23 AM

Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Nominative: A hybrid view

On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 12:20:35 +0000, Jens Elmegård Rasmussen
<jer@...> wrote:


>> >> Does this explain all the neuters with *o/*e, such as:
>> >>
>> >> *wodr, *wednos "water"
>> >> *smok^wr, *smek^nos "beard"
>> >> *g^onu(r), *g^enwos "knee"
>> >> *h2ost(Hi), *h2est(H)nos "bone"
>> >> *pok^u(r), *pek^wos "livestock"
>> >> *mostr(g), *mestnos "brain, marrow"
>> >> *h1oudhr, *h1udhnos "udder"
>> >> *k^ouh1r, *kuh1nos "hole"
>> >> *h2ongl, *h2englos "charcoal"
>> >> *k^okWr, *k^ekWnos "excrement" (also *sok^r, *sek^nos)
>> >> *sókWt(Hi), *sekWtHnos "upper leg"
>> >> *stomn, *stemnos "mouth"
>> >> *wosr, *wesnos "spring"
>> >> *h1osr, *h1esnos "autumn"
>> >> *doru, *derwos "tree"
>> >> *woh1r, *wehros "water" ?
>> >
>> >To the extent that they have been correctly reconstructed, I'd be
>> >inclined to say yes. In *h2óst-h2/*h2ast- we even have the
>> >collective marker sitting on the word in Skt. ásthi.
>>
>> So why is it not a trace of it seen in other forms? 
>
>What "other forms"? The collective marker was only present in the
>nom.-acc., so it should not be there. And if the status of
>collective has been lost, there was no need for it. You quote it
>yourself in sákthi; you could add dádhi.

Let me rephrase that: what is the collective marker *h2 doing _before_ the
suffix -r/n-?

>> >One could
>> >assume the same for há:rdi 'heart' which basically alternates
>*k^érd-
>> >/k^rd- and is neuter.
>>
>> It alternates *k^e:r(d), *k^r.d(i)- because the long vowel was
>here **i:
>> (*ki:rd, *ki:rdiás > *k^é:r, *k^r.di(y)és).
>
>Where did all that come from?

Cf. also *pí:r-an G. *pi:r-án-âs "house" > *pé:r(r), *pr.nós
This is the e:/0 type, reflecting older **i:, just like the *o/0 type
reflects **u: and the normal *o/*e type reflects **a:.

I know you're not willing to even consider this, but if you would, you'd be
able to confirnm that it works.

>> OK, that was unfair: it is applied twice in my way of looking at
>the
>> evidence, not yours.  In a form like *po:ds, I see lengthening
>applied once
>> by *-s (o > o:), so I can't use it anymore to explain the *o
>itself, which
>> as expected, is not long in the accusative.
>
>Well, if you lengthening twice under your rules, and not under mine,
>and you don't like that, choose mine.

I think I have a better solution.

>> >Why did it not do that in a verb?
>
>> It did.  The perfect/stative shows the exact same distribution as
>the noun,
>> i.e. a few cases of e:/e, and a lot more of o/e. 
>
>Where do we find an o-type Narten ablaut opposing active sg. /ó/ to
>active du./pl. and middle voice /é/? Especially some examples of
>active /ó/ : middle /é/ would be welcome. I do not find such a type.

The Hittite Ablauting hi-conjugation verbs have precisely such an
arrangement (-a- in the act.sg., -e- in the act.pl. and middle).

I must say that I haven't made a study of the Narten verbs in the whole of
IE.  I'm only more or less familiar with the evidence from Vedic, where the
type you describe (that of the Hittite hi-conjugation ablauting verbs)
would be impossible to detect in the active:

act.sg. -oC(C)-mi    > -aC(C)mi
        -oC(C)-si    > -aC(C)si
        -oC(C)-ti    > -aC(C)-si
act.pl. -eC(C)-més   > -aC(C)-más(i)
        -eC(C)-thV'  > -aC(C)-thá(na)
        -eC(C)-énti  > -aC(C)-ánti

Not an open syllable in sight, so *e and *o simply merge.  The type would
therefore have had little chance of surviving in the middle (after all, not
even /stu/, which _does_ retain the Narten-form (stau-) in the active sg.,
offers much in the way of evidence for plural or middle forms *sto-/*stav-
to match).

>> /o/ is the normal Ablaut
>> grade of the perfect, but a few verbs show /e:/.  The /e/-grade of
>the
>> (weak) plural is seen in Hittite.  Elsewhere the situation is
>rendered less
>> clear by reduplication: the reduplication vowel has /e/-grade
>(instead of
>> /i/) and the root has zero-grade:
>>
>> **ti-tá:wd-  > *ti-tówd-h2 + -a                : Skt. tu-tód-a
>> **tí:-tawd-  > *te:-tud-m  + -é  > *te-tud-mé  : Skt. tu-tud-má
>>
>> In the 3rd. plural, at least Indo-Iranian did initially not shift
>the
>> accent to the ending (*té:-tud-r.s -> tutudúr), and we find traces
>of the
>> reduplicative vowel *e:.
>
>You are completely disregarding the strucures actually shown by the
>IE verb: ó/zero is found in three reduplicated sets: perfect,
>intensive, reduplicated aorist. These are all reduplicated, and the
>weak form is zero in them all.

I'm not disregarding that: I'm explaining it.

>An unreduplicated ó/é type does not
>exist.

It does in Hittite.


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