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

From: Glen Gordon
Message: 27820
Date: 2003-11-29

Jens:
>I wonder if you have any basis for the last sentence, "It seems more
>like something analogical in this case." Could you explain how the
>Caland alternations could possibly be analogical, and state the
>reasons you have for believing that such a possibility is true?

Language abounds with analogical changes. So having a particular
obsession for sound changes over analogical ones cannot account
for the real-world situation. It may be more "testable", as you say,
but the picture can only end up being distorted.

I believe that Miguel already mentioned his "Scenario #3". I quote:
"At the time of the breakup of PIE, *-u and *-ro shared something
_semantical_, which was not shared by any other adjectival suffixes."
The "analogy" I mention involves the interchangeable nature of
these suffixes, of course.

At any rate, you have not yet established reasonable logical grounds
for a phonetic change. As a result, the idea of these suffixes being
etymologically seperate but interchangeable in function is the most
optimum solution so far.


= gLeN

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca