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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:

> I do *not* take every *Mid IE* root to be monosyllabic.
> For example, while *kwon- is monosyllabic in PIE, it
> cannot be monosyllabic in Mid IE where we need *kawana
> based on Penultimate Accent and Syncope.

But you do take the surfacing root vowel to be the last vowel of the
root, right? Only you are not always sure it is the only vowel of
the root? And sometimes you are convinced there was a vowel in the
root before the one found on the surface? I can't find much to check
this by, actually I know only of my o-infix which can show where it
goes and where it doesn't go, but that is itself a thing on the
drawing board.

Therefore I may repeat:

> > 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.
>
> I can concede that you may or may not be right. But to
> say "it's all we've got" is certainly like issue a decree,
> your charge against me! It's not all we got. We have
> other ideas. Piotr is giving input and I am too. And no
> doubt there are other theories in print that I haven't
> come across yet in my own ignorance.

All serious ideas I have seen relating to is have been ancillary to
it, taking the correctness of the o-infix theory as a given. Such
ideas disappear if the o-infix is wrong.

>
> > No, no, no. It is not logical to make default
> > generalizations based on *lack* of evidence.
>
> Simplicity is logical. The antithesis of this would
> be chaos and unnecessary complexity.

By what standards is it simpler to assume that there is more in the
root than we can see, than it is to assume that there is not? You
are standing on your head here.

> It seems you're
> confusing reality and theory and confusing
> "generalizations" opposing facts that already exist
> to refute such generalizations versus logically
> siding with simplicity until added complexity is
> needed. So, yes, it IS logical and the onus remains
> on you to find exceptions to the general rule.

I see no evidence contradicting the general rule that the root was
monosyllabic. There may however be evidence to indicate that the
stem of *k^uon- was not a root, but a suffixed stem. That would be
one way of explaining the -o-.

>
> >If you don't know, you can't tell!
>
> We don't know any which way so why would you side
> with complexity in your own ignorance??

I wouldn't if I didn't have evidence, but I do. I would have no
qualms making all kinds of foolish claims based on ignorance, if
they made things simpler, but I refuse to make assumptions *against*
evidence I do see.

That's why I say:

> > 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.
>
> I hear your claim. However within the contexts of my
> own views on Mid/Late IE, your claim surfaces a little
> differently than you expect or may have intended.

No, I expected it would look that way to you.

> Within my theories, your *O-fix must in fact predate
> Vowel Shift, meaning that it is a misnomer: it is an
> *a-fix.

You may call it whatever you like.

> Secondly it occurs during a time with different
> phonotactics than Reconstructed IE.

You don't say?! So maybe that's why the phonotactics changed?? The
movement of the o-element into the infix position where we find it
in most structures is a phonotactic change.

> None of these
> things are accounted for in your *O-fix theory.
> Instead, you illogically impose the same rules on
> this Pre-IE stage as they exist in Reconstructed IE,
> not giving thought to the overbearing likelihood that
> things were in fact a little different.

I would assume anything for which there is evidence. Give me some!
Failing that, I go by simplicity.

> This, I feel,
> can help account for why the phonetics of your *O
> are a little awkward -- they are ultimately an
> illusion.

Do you know anything about my views on its phonetics? If you do,
what is so awkward (if only a little) about them?

> > I can't find g'ffawed in my dictionary. What is it in
> > the infinitive?
>
> No need for definition when you provide the above example.

I found guffaw - not inappropriate, I might add.

> > 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.
>
> *trep-/*terp- for example but not within a single paradigm
> per se.

That was the issue, damn it! Still -

> > 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?
>
> Please don't confuse pre- and post-Syncope stages. Your
> O-fix must be post-Syncope (or perhaps during, and
> a reflex of, Syncope according to my latest up-and-coming
> explanation).

The metathesis is pre-syncope, and the laryngeal-deleting effect and
the vocalization are post-syncope. That ought to be obvious.

Jens