On Sun, 08 Jun 2003 17:55:26 +0200 (MET DST), Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
<
jer@...> wrote:
>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.
Oops, my mistake. The rule in Albanian is *VsR > *V:R (where R is any
resonant, except that before /m/ there is no lengthening). The following
examples from Beekes:
jam "I am" < *h1esmi
yll "star" < *h1uslo-
dorë "hand" < *g^hesr-
Of course, this has no bearing on *peds-.
For OIr. tír < *ters-, I see no other explanation than lengthening caused
by the *-s-. Do you?
>> >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".
The accent _could_ get off it, and did, and in root nouns caused a long
vowel in the root syllable to be shortened. The analysis is:
*pa:d-á -> *pad-á (= in your notation: *pe:d-é -> *ped-é),
and then by the inital accent rule and the zero-grade rule:
*ped-é -> *péd-e > *péd + i
I'm using your rules exactly, so what's the problem?
>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.
My source is not Schindler.
I find that collectives _do_ have their own paradigms, in some cases even
in the absence of a non-collective (and secondarily "animatized").
"water" *wód-r, *wédnos, COLL. *udó:r, *udéns
"dawn" *h2áuso:s, *h2áussm., *h2ussós, COLL. *h2usó:s, *h2uséss
"winter" *gh^éyo:m, *gh^yémos, COLL. *gh^yó:m, *gh^yéms
"earth" *d(h)é:gh^m, *d(h)gh^mós, COLL. *d(h)gh^ó:m, *d(h)gh^éms
"dog" (COLL.->animate) *k^wó:n, *k^wéns ~ *k^úns
>>[...]
>> 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?
I wasn't claiming silliness. I was interested in your opinion on the
"bone" word (and the -i/-n- stems in general). There is a *h2 there, but
it's hard to tell where it's supposed to be exactly, which is a question
that must be answered before we can call it "collective *-h2" or anything
else.
Pokorny IEW gives the reconstruction as *ost(h); ost(h)i, ost(h)r.(g), obl.
ost(h)-(e)n-. The relevant forms are Skt. ásthi, asthnás, Grk. ostéon
(*osteyon), ostakós/astakós "crab", óstrakon "sherd", óstreon "oyster",
óstrus "a kind of tree", astrágalos "knuckle". Wenat. (what's that?)
ostüakon "ossuarium", Lat. os, ossis; ossu, ossua; ossum, OIr. asil
"member", asna (*astonio-?) "rib", We. ass-en "rib", asgwrn; Hitt. hasta:i,
Av. asc^a- "shin", Arm. oskr, Alb. asht, Av. ast-, asti-.
EIEC reconstructs OIr. asna as *h2estniyo- and mentions Latin costa "rib"
and Slavic kostI as problematical.
In fact, every single part of the word is problematical. Latin costa and
Slavic kostI point to initial *q- (*k-), while Hittite h- points to a
laryngeal (*h2 or *h3) [and so do the other words, inclusing Latin os and,
perhaps, Slavic *ostI = Pol. os'c' "fishbone"]. If the laryngeal is *h3,
the vowel is automatically *o, but if we want to explain the Celtic (and
Greek) forms with a-, it's better to assume *h2- and *o (obl. *e) vocalism
of the root. The next two segments are *s and *t, that's more or less
clear. But what comes next? Generalizing, there seems to be a velar
element which mainfests itself as *h (aspiration) in Skt., *-k- (ostakos,
ostrakos) and *-g- in Greek (astragalos) and Welsh (asgwrn) and perhaps
Armenian (oskr). There is an *n (Skt. asth-n-, Greek *ost-n.-kos, Ir.
asna-) alternating with *r (Grk. ostrakon, ostreon, ostrus, astragalos,
Arm. oskr), and, apparently, with *(V)i (Skt. asth-i, Av. asti-, Greek
ost-ey-on, ostr-ey-on, Hitt. hastai, Slav. (k)ostI). Finally, some forms
show an *u (Grk. ostrus, Wenat. ostü-, Latin ossu, Arm. oskr if the k is
from *w).
>> 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 can only quote my Hittite syllabus by Theo van den Hout:
"Naast de verba van de mi-conjugatie met Ablaut -e/a- (type app-/epp-
"nemen" Ib) beschikt ook de hi-conjugatie over een vergelijkbare klasse
verba (IIb). Hier is de verdeling echter anders; oorspronkelijk
verschijnen hier de vormen met -e- in de stam in de plur., door
analogiewerking echter is dit schema regelmatig doorbroken.
Voorbeelden: sakk-/sekk- "weten", has-/hes- "openen", asas/ases- "doen
zitten" (Fr. $170):
Prasesens:
Sing. 1 sa:khi asashi
2 sa:kti asasti
3 sa:kki ha:si, haszi, heszi asasi
Plur. 1
2 sekteni, sakteni
3 [sekkanzi] hassanzi, hesanzi asesanzi
Praeteritum:
Sing. 1 hashun asashun
3 sakkis hasta asasta, asesta
Plur. 1 hesuwen
3 sekker heser, haser aseser, asaser
Medio-pass.praet 3sg. hestat
Participium sakkant- hassant-, hesant- asesant
>> 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 was talking about Sanskrit. As I said, I have no knowledge of Narten
forms in other languages (such as Hittite).
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...