--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "P&G" <petegray@...> wrote:
> [...] Sorry to be tedious, [...]
You are'nt.
> "The four-star prestage must also have had (the prestage of) the
> prefix/infix. If we write it as /O/ (meaning consonantal prestage
of
> later o of this kind), the full word was *O-men-éye-ti
(reservations for
> the exact shape of the thematic vowel -e/o- and the primary
marker -i)."
>
> I thought you were suggesting this /O/ as a kind of prothesis
before a
> consonant cluster, to aid pronunciation.
No, I never meant that. It's a morphological element. The underlying
simpleton idea is that we are in no position to prescribe how (e.g.)
a causative should be made, except by looking at the examples. So if
we find there was more in it than just root plus suffix, so be it.
> But here you are suggesting its
> existence before the cluster is formed. That may be true (I still
like the
> idea) but we're still left with questions: under what conditions
was it
> used?
It must have been used every time the particular morphological
function it conveys was called for. I do not know exactly what the o-
infix formations are used for, but that problem remains if you
decide to call them o-grade instead. At least I get ahead in the
analysis of *some* o-vocalism types that share a strange
morphophonemic behaviour in contradistinction to some other o-types.
> Why is it unlike anything else in the phonology?
I really don't know. But is it really different from the nasal infix
is that respect? The act of metathesis observed with the present-
forming suffix-turned-infix is not a rule known to apply to any
nasal in a given position, and the fact that it is identical with
the phoneme /n/ is little different from the development of the o-
infix to coalescence with the pre-existing phoneme /o/. I know of no
staunch opposition to the acceptance of an infixed nasal to create
present stems. On the contrary, the analysis of the nasal presents
was accepted as so solid that it could serve as a major piece of the
basis on which the laryngeals were discovered.
>
> Do pardon me if I seem excessively stupid. You have rolled these
ideas
> around in your head for some time, and I am less practised at it,
so when I
> try it, they crash into other older ideas that haven't yet learnt
to get out
> of the way.
That is my strength and my weakness. The necessity of the
consonantal analysis emerged from the preliminary analysis of the
main ablaut rules that are more amenable to morphophonemic analysis -
so it's analysis heaped upon analysis. Unlike most others, however,
I can justify all of my suggestions, and for most I believe I can
even prove their logical necessity. On the other hand, that has been
claimed by others before who were certainly not right. Recognizing
that puts me under a strong obligation to be very specific and very
careful. And when I am I become an easy target. My statements are
easy to understand; when others see a consonant and call it o-grade
they encounter no opposition, but when I call it a consonant I am
treated as if I am crazy. I take pains to strip the uncovering of
the linguistic prehistory of the mysticism in which it is often
veiled. That gives critics greater confidence that they have not
misunderstood the message, and since most scholarly response in
negative anyway, I tend to get a rougher deal, or no response at
all.
My best defense is that I don't *like* the idea of the "consonantal
o", so it is not a "pet idea" I have grown excessively fond of. On
the contrary, I am *negatively* biased if anything, but my
opposition is overcome by the evidence.
Jens