[tied] Re: Nominative: A hybrid view

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Jun 2003 02:49:38 +0200 (MET DST), Jens Elmegaard

Rasmussen

> <jer@...> wrote:
>
>
> What about a singular door, for a change (*dhwor-s > *dhwo:r)?

That ought to work!

. That would make

> >*p&2-te'r-i have **-tr-e' [meaning: that would generate **p&2-tr-

é instead of *-tér-i -JER].

>
> 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.

I don't have that inhibition since I toy with the possibility of a
special treatment at the border between an orthotone word and a
following enclitic. We may well have *some* reduction there too, but
less than in the original final position we see reflected in the
nom.-acc.sg. That nicely supports the ablaut of the locative: accent
on final syllable of the stem, not on a desinence; that could have
been caused by an enclitic element which had that status after other
old added elements had been fused into desinential parts of the word.

> 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"?

It must have been frequent enough for the form to be one we can
reconstruct - with a structure we only find in the locative.

> >> "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

I still see no evidence for such forms - they just don't remind me
of anything I know. In my more acid moments I call such reasoning ad
aliud. You are in good company however: many younger IE-ists are
currently making their way into the higher scholarly ranks by
suggesting adjustments of reconstructed paradigms. It appears that
amphikinetic is considered superior to mobility between adjacent
syllables (and maybe for this reason the mobility of root nouns ans
root verbs is also called amphikinetic although the words are too
short for the question to arise), and a funtional causation is
preferred over a phonological account any day. It looks like a whim
of fashion, no more no less.

> Speaking of doors, I'd also add:
>
> *dha(w)ú:r(-z) -> *dhwórz -> *dhwó:r
> *dha(w)u:r-ás -> *dhwrés -> *dhurés

I can accept that accented -wó- alternates with unaccented -u-, but
that's as far as I'll follow.

> >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 :-)

You're welcome; general fairness just demanded of me that I stopped
being so completely negative towards valuable and challenging
suggestions.

> Perhaps more about "bones" tomorrow...

As far as I'm concerned, you may take your time. I'll have to go
into hiding for a week or two to get some other pressing stuff done.
This has been too intriguing to be left alone, but I only have 24
hours a day for everything I do. But I'll be back,

Jens