Jens:
> Sorry, I fouled up a sentence here. I meant: It's a proven fact that
> some clusters have come about by loss of intervening vowels, but
> it's a well-known, if tenacious, fallacy -
>
>> > [-] to assume the
>> > same for all other clusters.
Ah, yes. Still, it would be more problematic to have to explain
why some initial clusters derive from syllables and others not.
Again, the onus is on you to prove this more complex view
because I don't accept this. Its possibility, which we can all
see is there, is still irrelevant if there is no proof.
...And I was _always_ talking about **initial** consonant
clusters but I was perhaps too vague in my wording. Medial
clusters do exist in Mid IE. I've even reconstructed one in
earlier posts! There's MIE *kastai "bones, ribs" (from Semitic
*qas^itu- "bow" but that's a whole other can of worms),
which became *qosti-/*xosti- "bones" in PIE. There _is_ a
consonant cluster *-st- although the two phonemes belong
to their own respective syllables... So it's an illusion
of the fact that all Mid IE syllables follow a strict CV(C)
pattern and medial clusters are thus bound to arise even
when initial clusters are banned. Don't pin me to a cross
because I've thought long and hard about Mid IE syllable
structures that so far prevent me until evidence arises to
dare pull initial consonant clusters out of a magic hat!
> You just changed the subject so as to cover only *initial*
> clusters, and that may be hard to decide about one way or
> the other.
Again, I swear I didn't mean to. Medial clusters CAN be
sniffed out thanks to the Penultimate Accentuation Rule.
Given the above etymon *kastai, the word cannot be **kasatai
because that would yield accent on the second *a, producing
PIE **ksoti- (note that it wouldn't even be *q)! The same
goes for *septam > *septm which would be disastrous if we
proposed **sepatam > **spotm. Blech!
> But for non-initial clusters the inference is patently wrong.
Yes, we agree and there's no need to continue that unless
others deny it.
> There is however the important generalization that the IE root
> was monosyllabic when the ablaut worked.
Yes, and this is where my views against pre-IE _initial_ consonant
clustering largely derive.
> Now, with the advent of the o- prefix-turned-infix we do get
> an opportunity to check it, and we see that the assumption of
> the monosyllabicity of the root is correct, at least as far
> as it matters.
Using an assumption that the O-infix is established in
entirety is not much of a good test in my view. I still have
an issue with calling *O a consonant.
> Quite the contrary, if we make unsubstantiated generalizations
> and even disregard differences we can observe, we are pretty
> sure to make real mistakes.
But you assume I make them without yourself justifying this
assertion. What mistake?
In two sentences or less, what shows that initial consonant
clusters in IE must also derive from true initial consonant
clusters in the farther past when others do not? I see no
logical reason to do anything but "generalize" all initial
consonant clusters as stemming from the same syllabic rules:
CV(C). Only counterevidence will sway me away from this
"generalization". Anything else wouldn't be logical.
> [...] but the arguments I have
> given are. I have never seen an argument in its favour..
But again, what arguements have you given? You've simply
g'ffawed at the idea but what proves the contrary of what
I'm saying about consonant clusters. So far, nothing. The
onus, no matter how much you squirm, remains squarely fixed
on you.
> The genitive of Skt. pas'ú is pas'vás. By Szemerényi's rules
> relating to the two types of i- and u-stem inflections, there
> should be no vowel between the *-k^- and the *-w- in this stem.
Whatever the case, there ARE hystero- and proterodynamic
paradigms alternations do exist between CVCC and CCVC all
the time in PIE. This can only be fully accounted
for by a combination Syncope and Penultimate Accentuation.
With both, the hystero- and proterodynamic paradigms blur
together into a common paradigm.
= gLeN