On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:22:16 +0000, elmeras2000 <jer@...> wrote:
> >> >And it is not only in adjective stems we observe reductions
> >> >of *-Ce/o- to *-e/o- (and further *-i-), we see something of the
> >kind at
> >> >the end of compounds too (*newo-g^nH3ó-s for **-g^nH3-tó-s).
I meant *-g^nH1- of course (Oh boy!).
Any other examples of -Cos > -os apart from neognós (if it
> is
> that)?
> >
> >There is no alternation of *-ro- and *-mo- except in formations
> >where they have lost their meaning.
>
> I just gave two examples of such an alternation. In what sense have they
> lost their meaning?
I would not see the coexistence of tigma- and tigra- as a case of
alternation. I guess there are two independent derivatives which used to
have a semantic difference between them but lost it (as far as can be
seen). I do not know of any set of conditions under which *-ro- turns
into *-mo- or vice versa.
>
> >There is an alternation between
> >*-ro and *-u- which both form adjectives. One could say they form
> >positives. The two are distributed in what looks like the ruins of
> >older complementary distribution: If the syllabic nucleus is a
> >sonant, the suffix is *-u-; if the nucleus is a vocoid it takes *-ro-
> >. There are some cases of doublets, but Brugmann's sizable list can
> >really be arranged to show this.
>
> I'm sorry, I can't see this distribution. The first five adjectives in
> -ro- that come to mind (*h2r.gró- bright, *h2ugró- strong, *h1rudhró-
> red,
> *kruh2ró- "grausam", k^ubhró- "shiny, pure") don't follow the rule, nor
> does the second u-stem adjective that springs to mind (*swáh2dus "sweet")
> [The first one, *bhr.g^hú- "high" does].
It is astonishing to what degree the list of examples given by Brugmann in
the Grundriss vol. 2,1 of probable IE reconstructs of ro- and u-stems
lends itself to the detection of complementary distribution. It is about
90 % pure, and you just quoted the other 10 % - and misread some (-u- is a
vocoid and so takes -ro-).
A. Gr. II,1 (2nd ed. 1906), p. 348-51 has these IE ro-adjectives:
Vocoid core (% is schwa secundum):
H1rudh-ro- 'red'
bhudh-ro- 'awake'
k^ubh-ro- 'pure'
slub-ro- 'slippery'
mik^-ro- 'mixed'
skH2id-ro- 'pierced'
kit-ro- 'brilliant'
k^wit-ro- 'white'
pik^-ro- 'pointed'
lip-ro- 'fat'
wik-ro- 'lively'
koi-ro- 'grey'
is&-ro- 'agile'
gWhaid-ro- 'fair'
m%k^-ro- 'big'
w%g^-ro 'awake'
dh%b-ro- 'skilled'
bhudh&-ro- 'deaf'
H2%k^-ro- 'sharp'
stH2%-ro- 'stiff'
me/oH1-ro- 'great'
sphH1%-ro- 'thriving'
seH1-ro- 'late'
g^heH1-ro- 'abandoned'
gWiH3-ro- 'lively'
skH2i-ro- 'clear'
dhiH-ro- 'clever'
suH-ro- 'sour'
skuH-ro-/-lo- 'covered'
smey-ro-/-lo- 'smiling'
leyH-ro- 'thin'
stuH2-ro-/-lo- 'erect'
doubtful:
mn(s)dh(&1)-ro-/
mens-dh&1-ro- 'clever'
contrary:
dhwns-ro- 'dusty'
H1lngWh-ro- (also H1lngh-u-) 'light'
B. Gr. II,1, p. 176-78, has these PIE u-stems:
sonant core:
trs-u- 'dry'
pltH2-u- 'broad'
mld-u- 'weak'
mrd-u- 'slow'
krt-u- 'strong'
dhrs-u- 'daring'
krt-u- 'sharp'
mrg^h-u- 'short'
bhng^h-u- 'thick'
H2mg^h-u- 'narrow'
gWrH2-u- 'heavy'
plH1-u- 'plentiful'
wrH1-u- 'broad'
tnH-u- 'thin'
H1lngh-u- 'light'
contrary:
lip-u- (also lip-ro-) 'slippery'
swa:d-u- (also suH2d-ro-) 'sweet'
o:k^-u- (analysis?) 'swift'
H1we:s-u- (analysis?) 'good'
medh-u- (analysis?) 'sweet'
I have doctored a bit on some of the examples, but never decisively to my
advantage.
Even if one might add a number of contrasting cases from younger
scholarship (as, *bhrg^h-ro-/*bhrg^h-u- 'high', or *H2rg^-ro-/*H2rg^-u-
'swift, shining' from the same root), the general picture is hard to
dismiss. Where a given root is known with only one form it has -u- after
sonants and -ro- after vowels, at least some 90% of the time. That must
reflect something that was once a rule.
I think I can understand the rule: A sonant nucleus apparently excludes
(or, tends to exclude) *-ro-, i.e. an amass of sonants. This looks like
cluster reduction.
One might like *swáH2d-u to be a substantivized neuter on a par with
*pélH1-u (Goth. filu, OIr. il), so that the regular adjectival form is
*suH2d-ró- (Toch. B swa:re, i-alternant in Goth. sutis). But if a sonant
root like *bhen^gh- formed only *bhng^h-ú-, why does *bhrg^h-ú- have
*bhrg^h-ró- beside it? The simple answer may seem to be that the rule
ceased to operate at some point.
> >I suspect that the origin of *-ro-
> >and *-u- is ultimately the same and that, under the relevant
> >phonotactic conditions, *-u- is the phonetic representative of both
> >*-ro- and *-i-.
>
> Allright, that's my point of departure too. So what do you think are the
> phonotactic conditions?
>
> >The suffixes *-mo- and *-no- alternate when from *-mn-o-, originally
> >distributed by a dissimilatory principle seen by Johannes Schmidt: *-
> >no- if a labial precedes on the word, otherwise *-mo-. In the
> >passive participle, however, *-no- alternates with *-to-, a fact one
> >would like to connect with the active participle *-ent- of which it
> >is perhaps an adjectival derivative.
>
> That's all either true (*mno > *mo/*no), likely (*-ent connected to
> *to/*no) or worth investigating (*to and *no as variants).
That's a pleasant situation of agreement.
>
> However, I am not convinced that _all_ adjectives in *-mo- or *-no-
> derive
> from *-mno-.
I guess it will hold until a solid case of a different origin of a
suffix *-mo- is established. But perhaps that has been done already?
>
> [...]
>
> I don't think anybody _here_ is putting up a scenario in purely
> functional
> terms. I don't even know what that means exactly.
Pleasant agreement again. I am referring, e.g., to the account given in
Meier-Brügger's Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft. In that philosophy,
the Caland -i- is a marker of "abstract formations", since it reappears in
some formations that can be justly given that description. This is so
simply because the perspective is narrowed to those formations that happen
to be abstract derivatives (as Latin ravis vs. ravus), while other
i-formations that would show that the -i- on the whole appears in
categories where the underlying morpheme was reduced are left out of
consideration. On that imperfect basis, it is now the goal of the art to
account for other i-forms as containing an abstract formation based on an
adjective. In specific terms, it means that a form like *H2rg^-i-pod-
means, not 'having swift feet', but 'having swiftness-feet', which of
course is the same thing. I consider the interpretation of the i-form as a
substantive completely misguided. You did not make that mistake (if such
it is), and I did not, but very many of our colleagues support each other
in agreeing on that funny analysis, at times even emphatically.
>
> My analysis, as I sketched it before, is one of phonetic change. We know
> (at least in this group, if not outside it, it seems to be communis
> opinio)
> that at some point in pre-PIE, final *-n developed into *-r.
I think we constitute but a small sect among practitioners in the field.
If the
> adjectives in *-rós are thematizations of earlier *-r/*-n-stems (it is
> perhaps significant, perhaps just a coincidence, that both in Latin and
> in
> Anatolian stems in *-ros show forms in -er and -ar, respectively, which
> are
> usually explained by assuming special soundlaws reducing *-ros > *-rs >
> *-r), then that takes care of the connection between *-n/*-n-os and
> *-r(-os) .
You should not use gratuitous arguments. If a piece of evidence can be
"just a coincidence" we cannot use it. I stay agnostic about the
connection between r/n-stems and the adj. suffix *-ro-. I do not find this
connection obvious, but admit I have no real criteria to go by.
> What the connection is with the u-stems is more difficult to
> see, except in Armenian, where -r, -u- and -n- happily coexist in the
> paradigm of u-stem adjectives (barj-r, barj-u, barj-un-k`), as well as
> some
> (neuter) nouns.
The Armenian forms do not look like pertinent evidence: if *g^onu yields
cunr 'knee' they merely show what came out of word-final *-u(s).
> My proposal is a set of soundlaws:
>
> NAn. *bhérg^h-un > *bherg^hur ~> barjr (oblique stem barj- analogical)
> [this is just the -n > -r soundlaw]
>
> G. *bherg^h-ún-os > *bhr.g^héw-os > *bhr.g^hwós > barju
> [stressed *ú labializes a following *n or *t: the result is *ún > *éw,
> *út
> > *és, cf. *méh1nu:t-, *meh1núto:s > *méh1no:t-, *m(e)h1nésos].
>
> pl. *bhérg^h-un-es(W) > barjunk` (perhaps through analogical
> *bhérg^h-on-es, with normal n-stem plural -unk`, -an- < */n./ in the
> plural
> oblique)
>
> Now all that's required is a palatalization law to explain -i- < *n^.
As far as I can see this means that you are equating the Caland -i- with
the original suffix *-un of u/ro-stems, right? I cannot see you have
addressed the form *-ró- which now appears to have no place in your
system. Now, a connection between -i-, -u- and -o- as surface forms of the
"thematic vowel" segment appeared to be the common basis we shared. Now
that is gone.
I can only give this vague comment: In many ways we apparently think
alike, but we differ about where to draw the line, and in our choice of
what we are ready to accept as evidence.
I'll leave it here for now.
Jens