[tied] Re: Syncope

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

>
> Jens responds to...
> >> 1. Syncope on some level MUST exist in Pre-IE
> >> ---------------------------------------------
>
> We at least agree. You may reject *pleh-/*plh-/*pelh-
> but Piotr seems to suggest *polh-no-. Me confused.

Let me help: The root was *pleH1-; ablaut reduction caused zero
grade *plH1-, and analogy created a new full-grade *pelH1-. By the
time the protolanguage disintegrated the root then had two full
grades, *pleH1- in old forms, *pelH1- in some younger forms. I am
not the right person to discuss Piotr's opinions with. I do not
accept the suggestion *polh-no- at the present moment, but that is a
matter of extending the theory, and of course we do not know where
continued investigation will take us. I will have to insist only
that it has not taken us there just yet.

>
> >> It suggests an earlier stress accent, [...]
> >
> > It does indeed point to an accent of some expiratory
> > prominence, but it does not in any way exclude that the
> > accent had other properties also, such as tonal height.
>
> No, perhaps not. But efficiency excludes it. Stress is the
> likeliest to cause syncope, which is why it is often
> believed to have been stress, not tone.

I got a feeling this was going to be used in evidence later, so I
was careful to make the point already now that this is probably not
an exhaustive characterization of the IE accent. But stress *is* the
obvious feature to have caused unaccented short vowels to vanish.

> >> It must also be assumed until shown otherwise that Syncope
> >> was a single event by way of logical simplicity.
> >
> > That is not a valid inference. In its simplest form it would
> > demand that the vowel loss occurred without an intermediate
> > stage, i.e. with full loss from one day to the next with no
> > weakening on the way.
>
> It is invalid only if we completely misunderstand my statement.
> I meant that there is a single event of syncope (with some
> sort of long-term weakening of those disappearing vowels
> implied) that caused the zero-grade in IE. Not two, not
> three, just one thing only that caused zerograde. When I use
> "event", I mean an event that is quite obviously a process
> that took a few generations to be completed. This is in
> fact accounted for in the present state of my theory but
> I haven't gotten into detail about it yet.

It is also invalid if we *do* understand your statement fully, I'm
afraid. Even gradual processes may have been of a number exceeding
one to create these losses. Perhaps unaccented vowels were lost only
in some environments at first and were only later lost in other
positions also. I do not see anything demanding such a tiered
solution, but I wouldn't know how to exclude it as you do so
explicitly. For the present purpose it appears not to matter.

> >> 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.
> >
> > Guilty as charged.
>
> Yet you won't agree that reconstructing initial consonant
> clusters in a post-Syncope stage is unnecessarily complex?
> I think you do agree, but you'd rather not admit it.

I take this to read "in a pre-Syncope stage".

No, a priori it is only a possibility, and its degree of complexity
is not deterring, so there is no reason not to keep it open. As the
story unfolds, it appears to be correct. Pre-ablaut IE did have
initial clusters.

> > Was that "everything about IE", and did it show the
> > all-pervasive status of "CV(C)"? I didn't see it showed
> > anything.
>
> You really want to grind this topic to the ground, don't you.
> Wonderful! :)
>
> In the case of your unjust example of *-mhno-, we know
> that it is a synthetic composite of *-m- + *-hn- + thematic
> vowel. In fact, so too is *-s-men-t and all other more
> phonetically complex suffixes I can think of. I think you
> gave too and couldn't find much here.

Are you positing pre-ablaut *dheweghe-meneH1ené- for IE *dhugh-
m.H1nó-, Sanskrit duha:ná-? What evidence is there for the root-
final vowel in this? What evidence is there for a root-final vowel
anywhere? And what evidence is there for a vowel between /n/
and /H1/ here? What evidence is there for a vowel following the /n/
of the suffix /-men-/ anywhere?

> I in no way stated that IE itself cannot tolerate such
> mediofinal clusters. I merely stated that the stage previous
> (the Mid IE stage) only tolerated a CV(C) syllable structure.
> It was only after Syncope that the previous dynamics of
> syllabics were destroyed and replaced by a new series of
> rules.

I understood that and objected to it, referring to pre-ablaut pre-
PIE.

>
> Yes, in the end, unless I can think of something awfully
> clever, it is all based on the concept of efficiency. It
> is more efficient to conceive of a CV(C) structure than
> either to propose something more complex without foundation
> or, worse yet, to have no phonotactic rules at all and
> winging it. It is also simpler to assume that *st in *stex-
> or *kw in *kwon-, like other initial clusters that we KNOW
> to be a product of syncope, also derive from syncope. In
> the case of *genh-, we need not worry because it must
> be derived from *k:enh- which when in a completed form
> will always yield nothing other than CV(C) syllables such
> as 3ps *k:enhe or 1pp *k:enhemes.
>
> Everything you state in contrast can only lead to more
> unjustifiably complex ideas. You oppose by having us
> believe in a CCVC-preIE without stating why. You would
> classify the consonant cluster in *stex- to be different
> than what we see with *pd- "foot" and, again, based on
> nothing. This is simply an illogical methodology.

If the roots are really *steH2- and *ped- they would both be
monosyllabic. That could be a principle which you would miss if you
insist on a choice based only on a dream of simplicity. When it is
observed that the o-infix formations move the prefix into the
position where the monosyllabic theory places the root vowel it is
confirmed that that vowel was indeed the first vowel in the root,
and that some roots consequently had initial clusters already in pre-
ablaut times. You are pressing simplicity to the point where it
cannot accomodate this fact.

> > The "ordered language structure" should be the result
> > of an unbiased inspection of the facts, not just a dream
> > about a maximum simple language structure, as it is here.
>
> Maximum simplicity IS unbiased, otherwise where else do
> we start?? Maximum complexity?! I find it easier to
> understand "zero" than I can "infinity"... so the less
> the better.

Let me be clearer still: You are confusing the theoretical maximum
with the applicable maximum. You should not assume greater
simplicity than the facts allow, but you do, even before you take a
proper look at the facts. And some of the time you have bad luck.

>
> > The part of the theory saying that clusters following the
> > root vowel have lost a vowel is disproved by the way the
> > inflectional accent moves,
>
> Do I need to keep reminding you to stick to INITIAL clusters,
> as per the original topic. Medial clusters are possible
> in a language with CV(C)-syllables and final clusters are
> all the product of suffixing and synthesis.

No, I won't. This language incidentally can also have more than two
consonants in medial position, even before the operation of the
ablaut, so that point of your account is also incorrect. A form like
*wért-mn 'turn' has three consonants in its pre-ablaut shape //wért-
men//. Words of that shape cannot be pressed into your CV(C) grid.

> > So much for its prospects. Need I add that it has been tried
> > many times and has failed every time?
>
> Well it can't possibly win if you reject logical simplicity
> in favour of... well... what?? Your biased imagination?

My biased imagination actually lost. I used to dream some of the
dreams you still believe, but they were contradicted by an
increasing number of facts, so I wised up and contented myself with
statements that allow for the existence of the facts I observe and
do no commit me to claims about things I cannot observe.

Jens