Re: [tied] Re: a-Epenthesis: This time its personal

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 enlil@... wrote:

>
> 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.

It can very well be true *without* your acceptance. It could also be true
without proof. But I believe there is proof.

>
> ...And I was _always_ talking about **initial** consonant
> clusters

You are right, you actually changed the subject back again, as I see now.

> [...] 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!

> [Jens:]
> > 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.

Then you do *not* take the IE root to be monosyllabic? I'm not sure how to
understand your English here.

> > 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.

It's not much, and it may not even be good, agreed, but it's all we've
got. I don't think we have *anything* going against it.

[Jens:]

> > 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?

No, this time it was theory.

> 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.

No, no, no. It is not logical to make default generalizations based on
*lack* of evidence. If you don't know, you can't tell! But I claim that
this has changed with the -o- element which tells us where the first vowel
of the root is, and that is always in the same spot as the full-grade
vowel. That is itself open to modification if new insights tell us so.


[Jens:]

> > [...] 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.

I can't find g'ffawed in my dictionary. What is it in the infinitive?


[Jens:]

> > 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.

Mention an example, please. I don't know of any examples of an alternation
between CVCC and CCVC as two forms of a root appearing in the same
paradigm. But that actually is immaterial if we are talking about clusters
*before* the (surfacing) root vowel. To settle that question we seem to
have *only* the evidence of the o-infix. And why assume the opposite of
what little indication we do have?

Jens