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

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

> I asked because this mechanism, which works fine for most consonant

stems,

> seems to fail in some cases. At least, I have a feeling that there

are

> some types of stems (besides the thematics) where either mobility or

Ablaut

> or both seem to fail in an uncomfortable number of cases. The main
> suspects, I feel, are the i- and u-stems, and also the s-stems.

Apart from

> the problem of the oxytone i- and u-stems, which you develop in the
> following, there's also the problem of i-, u- and s-stems which show

full

> grade (e or o) of the root throughout (off the top of my head:

*ghostis,

> *medhu, *nebhos). To the extent that they show accentual mobility,

the

> retention of full grade in the root would indicate that perhaps it's

the

> _mobility_ that's analogical, and _not_ the vocalism (so *nebhésos

is not

> analogical for *m.bhésos, but *nebhésos is analogical for something

like

> *nébh-esos).

I am sure mobility is secondary in some cases, so *you* may be on to
something very important here. I assume secondary mobility at least
for *pó:d-s, *ped-ós (old pattern retained in *dó:m-, *dém-s and
*nókWt-s, *nékWt-s).

> >
> >Do we have to posit
> >
> >*bhéng^h-u- => *bhng^h-ú-
> >*H2éwg-ri-s => *H2ug-ró- ?
> >
> >And do the substantival forms proceed from older
> >
> >*bhéng^h-ro- > *bhéng^h-o- > *bhéng^h-u-
> >*H2éwg-ro- > *H2éwg-ri- ??
>
> Is there an *h2áugri-? The substantives I can find for this root

seem to

> be the s-stem *augos and *aug-men(t)-. Av. aogar& (*augr.) is an

r-stem.

No, I only meant the substantival *type* in -ri-. The small number of
good forms to quote makes it insecure; perhaps the original
substantival variant of *-ró- had a totally different structure, and
*-ri- is only formed secondarily by substantivization of the
ro-adjectives. I have tried to keep it simple. That is rarely the
whole story.

>
> >The contrastive accent will appear to have worked in a setting:
> >
> >*bhéng^h-u- => *bheng^h-ú- > *bhng^h-ú-
> >*H2éwg-ro- => *H2ewg-ró-,
> >i.e. before the substantival form reduced *-ro- to *-ri.
> >
> >
> >This could yield a principled account for the difference between

-u-

> >and -ri- of the substantival forms: *-ro- loses its /r/ after roots
> >that have a sonant of their own; but the thematic vowel itself
> >undergoes a heavier reduction after a longer sequence, hence -ri-,
> >but -u;
>
> So you think -u- is a slightly reduced thematic vowel, and -i- a

more

> heavily reduced one...

Exactly.

> >
> >It looks strange perhaps that the -u- of the nom.-acc. acts like a
> >vowel when it receives the accent but as a consonant when the

suffix

> >is expanded to /-ew-/ after a cluster in the weak cases where it
> >gets the accent as a consequence of accentual mobility. This may
> >hold the key: The status of the high vowels would seem to have been
> >unstable.
>
> Of course. So unstable that pre-PIE **i and **u were largely lost

as

> vowels in PIE.

Yes, I have had a hard time coming to grips with the fact that some
cases of PIE /u/ are actually vowels underlyingly and not simply
syllabified /w/. However, it seems to be a necessary inference.

> >It would appear that the reduced form of the thematic vowel -u-
> >acted just like the later sonants: It stays a vowel before a
> >consonantal ending (-us, -um, -ubhis, -usu), but becomes a sonant

-w-

> > when followed by a vowel. That produced pre-ablaut gen.

*bhéng^h-ew-

> >os which with the second-syllable accent of adjcetives became
> >*bheng^h-éw-os and ended up IE *bhng^h-éw-s.

There is also the gen. pl., IE *-ew-o:m, judging by Gothic -iwe and
OCS -ovU.

> >
> >The lesson to be learned appears to be that adjectives made by
> >contrastive accent on the basis of substantives were not mobile,

but

> >columnal, in their accentuation.
>
> I can't agree with any of the thematic vowel reductions, so it's

hard for

> me to help you there. But I think in this last paragraph you're on

to

> something. Something smells of columnal accentuation in at least

some of

> the i-, u- and s-stems. I don't know how to explain it yet, but I'm
> thinking about it.

Thanks for your comments.

Jens