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

On Sat, 7 Jun 2003, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

> >
> >Then OIr. ís and Alb. përposh are just being disregarded?
>
> No. They represent secondary lengthening of *pedsu > *pe:ds. It's
> probably no coincidence that both Irish and Albanian have a lengthening
> rule affecting VRs > V:R (OIr. *tersa: > *te:rsa > tír (Lat. terra); Alb.
> g^hesr- > g^hersa: > g^he:rsa > dorë "hand".

There is no such rule in either language. *rs yields /rr/ without any
lengthening in both.

>
> >And then what *is* Avestan daNm ? You said it could be *do:m or *de:m.
> >Why then are you making a set of rules where it can't be either? Surely
> >the weight of Skt. padí is light since it shows the same stem as all
> >the weak cases.
>
> The locative *is* a weak case, so that is perfectly alright.

That is a simplistic view not matching the facts. The locative is a "weak"
case only in the sense that the stem is reduced if the accent can get off
it, which it only can if there is room for it to move. That is not
captured satisfactorily by calling it "weak". Imperfect terminology should
not be styled as arguments. So that makes Av. daNm a wrong form? I try
again: why are the two not structured the same?

>
>
> >> In the collective, it was lengthened, so that we get *wad-á:n-h2 >
> >> *udó:r. Didn't you just say that the loc.sg.
> >has the
> >> accent on the final vowel of the stem? So what is the stem in
> >Skt. loc.sg.
> >> udán?
> >
> >That is /-en-/ taken from the type that did insert -e-. This is the
> >renewed form. The old regular form would have been *wéd-n-i;
>
> Indeed, from *wed-&'n-&(i) via the initial accent rule and zero grade.
> Skt. udán is from the collective paradigm *w&d-en-é(i) > *udén(i).

We do not otherwise find that collectives have theor own paradigms - they
have their own collectives (the forms they are), but the system cannot be
seen to extend any further. I don't think the doctrine ever was anything
but an arrogant postulate on Schindler's part which has caught on because
it was so difficult to "understand". Wrong statements are. I hope this is
not being read by the really influential gurus of our field - I'll be
considered a traitor.

> >Avestan
> >gives us va{ng}ri 'in the spring' from *wé:s-r. The Slavic adj.
> >vesnInU 'of the spring, occurring in the spring' is taken to be
> >based on the locative meaning 'in the spring'; that could in fact be
> >*wésni.
>
> I agree.

How nice to see.

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

It isn't. It follows the stem, so the coll. ended in *-r-h2. If you're
staking anything on Ved. asthnas, sakthnas, I'd say forget it: Indic
generalizes aspiration from where it originated to whole paradigms. Would
you also see an old aspiration "before" the root vowel in the aorist
astha:t? It's the same kind of question - why is one wise and the other
silly?


[...]

> 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.

It basically ascribes the Narten ablaut to the rroot vocalism, only it
does not unite the e:/e type with the o/e type as I have tried to do. If
there is solid evidence to the effect that these are not two secondary
variants of one type, I'll accept anything that works. But in my present
state of ignorance I have no such problems. It's up to you to enlighten
the world, if that is what it needs.

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

That is news to me. It should be easy for you to substantiate it. Would
you please do that?

>
> 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).

What is this now? IE /e/ and /o/ do not merge in closed syllables in
Hitttite (except before sonant + consonant, and thanks to the difference
of accent-caused lengthening which worked only on /o/, not even there).
I can only see that the evidence is against what you claim, it's really
seems to be as simple as that.

>
> >An unreduplicated ó/é type does not
> >exist.
>
> It does in Hittite.

Well, so it does everywhere the reduplication has not bee retained in
these categories. By "majority rule" you could even "prove" that final
syllables had been lost in the protolanguage. For it's the protolanguage
we're speaking of here. I suppose we agree that we should not assign
grammatical categories to the protolanguage which we can do without. I do
not consider the "hi-conjugation at face value" serious evidence, but I
know I'm up against some of the heavyweights here.

Jens