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

On Mon, 09 Jun 2003 02:49:38 +0200 (MET DST), Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
<jer@...> wrote:

>The rule is not correct, nor, however, was my "rs > rr". Apparently it
>should just be "rs > r". A safe example appears to be <ter> 'to dry
>(trans.)' which must be a causative *tors-eye-. The vowel is the same as
>in other causatives like <ndez> 'ignite', i.e. i-umlaut of a from o. The
>lengthening is dore", pl. duar is not different from the one of dere", pl.
>dyer 'door'. I do not know what has caused it, but in the latter example
>it certainly was not an s-cluster; I have guess at the dual marker *-e
>which would be appropriate in both, but what would the rules be like then?

What about a singular door, for a change (*dhwor-s > *dhwo:r)?

>> 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?
>
>A big one, which I solved the first time around. That would make
>*p&2-te'r-i have **-tr-e'.

Of course. I saw that problem too. But I couldn't go back to an
endingless locative sg.: the soundlaw *n > *-r rules that out.

So I opted for the leap forward: p&2-té:r _does have_ a *p&2-tr-é(i). And
how often do you need "in the father"?

>> "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
>
>How did you decide on the pairing of collective nom.-acc. and coll. weak
>case forms?

Basically just by following your rules. If the collective is made by
shifting the stress one syllable to the right and then lengthening that
vowel (and shortening if needed, the previous one), we get (using my
a:/i:/u: notation):

*wá:d-an ->
*wad-á:n(-x) -> *udórh2 -> *udó:r
*wad-a:n-ás -> *udenés -> *udéns

*xáws-as ->
*xaws-á:s(-x) -> *h2usósh2 -> *h2usó:s
*xaws-a:s-ás -> *h2usesés -> *h2uséss

*gháy-âm ->
*ghay-á:m(-x) -> *gh^yómh2 -> *gh^yó:m
*ghay-a:m-ás -> *gh^yemés -> *gh^yéms

*dhí:gh-am ->
*dhigh-á:m(-x) -> *dgh^ómh2 -> *dghó:m
*dhigh-a:m-ás -> *dgh^emés -> *dgh^éms

*kaw-á:n -> *k^wón(-z) -> *k^wó:n
*kaw-a:n-ás -> *k^wenés -> *k^wéns

Or perhaps better:

*ka(w)ú:n(-z) -> *k^wónz -> *k^wó:n
*ka(w)u:n-ás -> *k^wnés -> *k^unés

Speaking of doors, I'd also add:

*dha(w)ú:r(-z) -> *dhwórz -> *dhwó:r
*dha(w)u:r-ás -> *dhwrés -> *dhurés

>I see no evidence for this at all. Believe me, I have been
>heavily indoctrinated with this, but I just can't see the basis of it. How
>did two clever brains see structures here which cannot be conveyed to me?

Tak :-)

Perhaps more about "bones" tomorrow...

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