On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>
> I must of course protest against "much more complicated" (only slightly
> so), and "less principled" (I don't think so).
Well, there may be little point in quibbling over that. The truth itself
may be more complicated and less principled than the solutions we see.
>
> In fact our two solutions are very similar in their basic principles:
>
> jer mcv
> person m / t / s m / t / s
> stem w
> number 0 / G / D 0 / ik / at
Thus far, quite similar, sure. But the difference is huge in the following
which is yours alone:
> case 1 u
> case 2 a (sg.) / i (du./pl)
> case 3 m ma
>
> Whether /w/ is a stem somehow meaning "person", or an ancient case
> marking
> /u/ is academic.
But it's a strange academy that puts up a case-marker /u/ to explain an
element seen in all cases. I have come up with an explanation of the
strange fact that this element shows no restrictions. We need it for
nominatives like *tu:, *wey, *yu:s and for accusatives like *twe,
*usme/*wos. That disqualifies the u- or w-element as a case-marker. If on
the other hand all forms can be given the u/w in their oldest shapes the
unrestricted occurrence would be expected. I do not know what the element
is there for - it is absent from the verbal endings (where many other
things are present). Perhaps it expresses what all the forms have in
common, or the independent status that sets them off from the verbal
endings. At any rate, the u/w-morpheme may be the second element of all
the forms of the chart. That is quite a lot to acribe to chance.
> The small benefit my analysis gives me is that I can
> explain the enclitic forms *me, *te, *se as derived from the other
> (oblique) ancient case marker /a/ [I don't recall off-hand how Jens
> explains them]. In the dual and plural, -u is in any case part of the
> stem
> in both analyses.
The enclitics of the sg. are identical with the orthotone forms, only
reduced (no long vowels, no initial clusters), while those of the dual and
plural are truncated forms (clipped after what used to be the first
syllable of a longer word). I do not have to multiply the system to
accomodate this.
>
> The number markers are essentially equivalent, as is the acc(/gen) case
> marker, except that my forms have built-in vowels.
>
> One might argue that my choice of rect. vs. oblique du/.pl. markers
> (*-iku,
> *-atu vs. obl. *-iki, *-ati) is less principled or more complicated
> compared with Jens' soundlaw *-D > *-s or *-y depending on the preceding
> vowel. On the other hand, I think it allows me to explain the
> "recessive"
> variants *més and *swéy(-es) in an elegant manner (in the dual we only
> have
> the "dominant" pattern *wéh1 < obl. and *yúh3 < rect.).
I do not accept the PIE existence of *mes and *swey (meaning 'Ihr'?). The
obvious explanation of *mes is like Modern Irish muid 'we' which is simply
the verbal ending made independent. The reinterpretation was helped by the
1st dual where *we(:) and *-we already coincided.
I do not know on what basis *swey has been posited in the first place. If
it has been invented to account for Celtic *swi:(s) 'you (pl.)', there was
no need: The 1pl *sni:(s) from *sne: < *sne (emphatic lengthening just
like *mi:) has been produced by a system containing orthotone *nsme and
enclitic *nos. Of these, the accented syllable of the orthotone form
supplies the initial consonant and the final vowel, while the intervening
consonant is taken from the enclitic. Now do the same to *usme / *wos and
you get *swe, whence *swe: > Celtic *swi:. I accept Katz' adjustment of
the original form as not having *-s on the strength of Gaulish sni. There
is no evidence in Celtic for the nominatives, and so no need to posit an
alternative form in competition with *yu:s.
>
> One aspect where I think Jens' theory is "less principled" than mine, is
> the vocalization, where Jens needs a vowel /e/ in the 1st. person, but
> /u/
> in the 2nd. person (non-oblique). Since the vowels are already built
> into
> my algebra, I don't have that complication.
But you gave the person markers as having no vowels - to show how neat it
all is. If the e/u difference is one of case, it is very strange to find
it opposing persons. I have pointed to the possibility of ascribing it to
the environment, seeing that /m/ and /t/ offer different possibilities of
assimilation and dissimilation. I find that much more principled than
simply doubling or tripling the system and postulating a differentiated
choice from among the original wealth. What is the evidence that there
ever were all those cases you are positing? It will certainly appear to be
the preferred solution to get to the goal without them, unless they are
very strongly independently motivated.
>
> As to the required soundlaws, both Jens' and my sets are, as well as I
> can
> determine, self-consistent and plausible in principle.
>
> Of course Jens' analysis is cleaner with respect to the bone of
> contention
> (what are the 2nd person plural forms about?) in that *y- and *w- simply
> follow from the soundlaws (*twuD > *DwuD > *DuD > *jus, while *tweDmé >
> *DweDmé > *weDmé > *usmé), while my analysis requires the irregular loss
> of
> *t- in a sequence tu...tu (or tW..tW / cW..cW), and later the irregular
> insertion of anti-hiatic *y- in the nominative. But I have my reasons
> for
> sticking to my account and not adopting Jens' explanation (which, I might
> maliciously add, only works because of the arbitrary ["non-principled"]
> vocalization).
That is not fair. I correlate diverging behaviour with the changing
phonetic environment offered by the system, not with mere postulates I
later efface. I observe that where the system leads me to posit accented
*twe- I rather find the reflex of *twu-; but where the system says *mwe-
nothing happens. Is dissimilation that hard to accept?
>
> In short, there is not that much distance between the two theories.
Not that much, but that much. There is a significant difference in the
size of the postulated original systems. You need many additional back-up
systems to draw on whenever the going gets rough, I don't.
Jens