Re: [tied] Re: Caland [was -m (-n)?]

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:38:05 +0100 (MET), Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
<jer@...> wrote:

>> 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-).

I took /u/ and /i/ to be sonants.

>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.

Yes, looks that way.

>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.

Well, that's only because I have just recently become aware of this fact,
and I don't know what to make of it yet. I mentioned it in the hope of
getting some help. I have long been aware of the peculiar development of
Latin words like <ager> which have a nom (and voc.) in -er, while the rest
of the paradigm is a regular o-stem (Acc. agrum, Gen. agri:, etc.). The
usual explanation, I believe, is that *agros became syncopated to *agrs,
which leads to attested <ager>. This does not explain why the vocative is
ager (or, rather, puer!), but I have never had any reason to have any
doubts.

What I wasn't aware of is a similar irregularity in Hittite, which Melchert
explains as a soundlaw in Proto-Anatolian affecting the final sequences
-Cros/-Crom (and -Clos, -Clom), which end up as -ar (-al) in Hittite. So
in fact, the same phenomenon that affects the Latin nominative and vocative
of *ro-stems, also seems to affect the nominative and accusative in
Hittite.

This may just be a coincidence, or a natural tendency for the sequences in
question, were it not that, for independent reasons to do with -n > -r,
-u/-ros, Armenian -u/-r/-n-stems, Caland, etc., I have to assume that
ro-stems are thematic derivations of former stems ending in -r. In this
light, the Latin and Hittite developments might be explained as reflecting
something completely different (retention of primitive forms) instead of an
irregular phonetic development of a final sequence -(C)ros/-(C)rom.

>> 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).

Not -us: all these nouns are neuters.

The Armenian forms prove to me that a number of u-stems in PIE are in fact
closet n-stems. An example not reflected in Armenian is *doru "tree, oak",
which also shows all the marks of being an old (u)n-stem. The original
paradigm would have been **dá:run, G. **da:rúna:s, which regularly develops
into **dórur, **deréwos > *dérwos, but still shows the -n- in Skt. G.
drún.as (perhaps from a [collective] form with length and stress
transposition **daru:nás > drunés), Ins. drún.a: (< *daru:néh1), Loc.
dá:run.i (completely regular in my paradigm: **dá:run-a + i > *dóruni >
da:run.i).

>> 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?

Not exactly equating. Caland -i must come from something like **-in or
perhaps even three-asterisked ***-uni (from a Proto-Nostratic genitive
ending *-i, preserved in Semitic). An archaic genitive makes sense in
composition...

>I cannot see you have
>addressed the form *-ró- which now appears to have no place in your
>system.

The forms in *-ró- are from athematic forms in *-r < **-n. Again, I have a
problem here with the exact proto-form of the suffix. Some forms, like
<arguro->, still clearly show the suffix *-un > -ur, extended with the
thematic vowel, but most adjectives in -ró- have no -u- before them, which
would make them from **-an instead of **-un (just like the i-forms seem to
continue **-in). If you are right about a conditioned alternation of -u
vs. -r(o) in the adjectives, then we have **-un > -u(r) after "sonant
nuclei", but **-an > -(&)r after a "vocoid nucleus", or perhaps (not very
likely at first sight) a special developent of *-wró- in this context.

>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.

Alas. I don't think the thematic vowel has anything to do with "Caland".


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