Syncope

Ignoring Jens' ennui towards me, I wanted to talk about
Syncope and its extent, which seems to be a point of
contention for some reason.


1. Syncope on some level MUST exist in Pre-IE
---------------------------------------------
If anything can be agreed on about Pre-IE, it's that it
had a stage where syncope of some extent had taken place. That
can be shown simply by alternations of the *pAlh-/plAh-/plh-
type (*A = any vowel).

By adding vowels within that root and others, we can regularize
its shape. We learn from this exercise that accent is the cause
of this Syncope event:

pre-Syncope
*pA'lAh- > *pAlh- (stress on 1st syllable)
*pAlA'h- > *plAh- (stress on 2nd syllable)
*pAlAh- > *plh- (no stress)

It suggests an earlier stress accent, rather than the tonal
one that must be reconstructed for Reconstructed IE proper in
order to best account for the vocalic wear and tear. At least
some syncope is needed for any good theory on pre-IE. It
must also be assumed until shown otherwise that Syncope was
a single event by way of logical simplicity.

So basically: You must accept Syncope in pre-IE!


2. ALL initial consonant clusters are caused by Syncope
-------------------------------------------------------
The issue between us (Jens and I) apparently involves our
different views on what is logically the simplest solution
concerning the _extent_ of Syncope. A clash of "simplicities",
as it were.

Jens seems to be saying that it is simpler to reconstruct
these initial consonant clusters to the farthest reaches of
pre-IE in our ignorance. I say that it is simpler to
reconstruct this previous stage with a same clear restriction
on syllable shape to the form CV(C) for ALL pre-IE syllables.
Afterall, every human language has restrictions on syllable
shape. How can we possibly ignore this?

Luckily for me, everything about IE shows that there is
indeed this simple, underlying CV(C) shape. We may find
complex medial consonant clusters as in *we:gHst but of
course, this is always the product of multiple affixes
(*we:gH-s-t). Perhaps *kerd- comes the closest to counterproof
but because of Syncope, it could derive from *kerAd-, not
*kerd-, if all we know. An indivisible root with a pattern
like CVCCCV(C)- for example could serve to break our simple
CVC notion but I'm not aware of any such root in PIE. I'm
not aware of any root that undermines this CVC solution.

Now, to reconstruct any initial consonant clusters in this
pre-Syncope stage as Jens would have us do forces us to
either accept that (C)CCVC is allowed only for initial
syllables, oddly without any proof of this shape in
subsequent syllables, or it forces us to accept that the same
shape was allowed for other syllables with some hypothetical
phonetic erosion perhaps. We certainly have more questions
but what have we answered by this? This is a deceptive excuse
of an "answer" to pre-IE Syncope. By simply pushing back
initial consonant clusters in PIE (eg *stex-) to an earlier
stage, we explain absolutely nothing at all. An unnecessary
multiplication of hypotheses quickly ensues. Nice magic act.

So with *kwon-/*kun-, it may either derive from *kwA'n-/*kwAn-
(a la Jens) or *kAwA'n-/*kAwAn- (a la gLeN). However, the latter
is logically superior because by conforming to a strict CV(C)
structure for all syllables, we avoid any further phonotactic
issues that the former solution overloads us with while offering
an ordered language structure right down to the last coda.


3. Stop to breathe
------------------
By this point, we should see that the solution I side with is
the most intuitive, doesn't raise added problems, and can solve a
wide array of otherwise arcane alternations such as *dyeu-/*deiwo-.
We now see that all initial consonant clusters must be the
product of Syncope until it is shown otherwise that a CV(C)
shape is insufficient to explain early IE forms.

Of course beyond the above lies my Penultimate Accent Rule (which
requires accepting that there was syncope at the END of a root
too (no big revelation either). But the gang needs to accept the
above points first before that rule can be fairly examined.


= gLeN