First and foremost:
> I don't see you learning even when given the best of
> opportunities by being told flat out.
Hmmm, That sounds a little _itchy, doesn't it?
Anyways, back to calm and collective...
Putting aside *polh-no- then, if you admit that
*pelh-, *plh- and *pleh- all co-existed in IE itself,
then what forces me to believe that *pelh- was
formed by analogy from *plh-. That seems like a lame
excuse since you can't predict the analogy. I don't
see why I should accept random rules of yours.
Certainly a theory is not hard evidence. I say that
*pelh- did not derive from *plh-. Prove me wrong.
With *stex-, there is no guarantee what it derives
from by just looking at it. It could be from *stex-,
*Vstex- or *sVtex-. You say that your O-fix theory
shows that it derives from *stex- simply because
*o is found in the "first available slot" of the
root and yields *stox-eye-. And what evidence shows
us that O-fix applies in the causative? Why isn't it
simple o-grade? You keep on saying the "facts"
demand it but the evidence is ethereal to me.
> It is like not looking when passing at a green
> light - you get killed the minute the unexpected
> happens.
I guess that means that you're too afraid to cross
on a green for fear of an improbable event. Clearly
your sense of logic is flawed then. Most people,
aside from Jens, understand that "green" means "go".
I personally can't be worried about my eventual
demise for otherwise I wouldn't be able to function.
This is why prioritizing thoughts is needed.
> It is unwise to dismiss possibilities.
I don't dismiss them. I prioritize them. There are many
theories I've dismissed only to have them revisited and
assimilated, including your ideas.
> The working of the ablaut on the input to the form
> proves that the structure existed at the time the ablaut
> operated.
Hardly. If "snowboard" is given a suffix "ing", does that
mean that "snowboarding" dates to the time when "ing" was
first formed? That's nonsense.
You assume without proof that *dHugHmhno- is sufficiently
ancient. I say that it isn't because the middle hadn't
yet formed until after Syncope. Now, you've mentioned an
analysis of *-mhno- as *-mn-hn-o- which is interesting and
even more damaging for you because if this is so, then we
_require_ SYNCOPE in order to yield your admitted ZERO
grade of *en "in" and only in this zeroed soup of the
resultant *-mnhno- may we drop the first *n in order to
yield our *-mhno- in the first place! Ergo, you proved
yourself wrong rather brilliantly. Congratulations. I
think you were too busy insulting my learning capability to
form a tight arguement.
So now that we must logically date *-mhno- to the
postSyncope period, the etymon as a whole has no weight
here in regards to Mid IE. Don't mention it again.
As for *wertmn, in light of the new Quasipenultimate
Rule... (I know this new theory switcheroo seems like a
cruel joke but I assure you I came to this new conclusion
out of independent necessity)... *wertmn would now be
reconcilable according to Mid IE syllabics: *wérta-man.
It yields eLIE preSyncope *wert'm'n and thus *wertmn.
This is assuming that the ending existed at that time,
of course.
> So, if there were roots ending in clusters (-wgh- in this
> case),
Sorry I don't recognize that ending. Can you supply a
REAL one this time? One that is not the product of
synthesis like we agree *-mhno- is? One relevant to
this discussion and Mid IE preferably?
> Ancient enough: the middle-voice forms have been
> operated upon by the ablaut, so they obviously
> existed at the time we are talking about.
Again, quantitative ablaut is a process initiated by
Syncope. The presence of ablaut does not guarantee
that the given form or paradigm is more ancient than
Syncope. The middle endings were clearly derived
from active ones at a relatively early age, yes, but
what "early" means is the question. From what I've
found, the middle can be best explained as follows.
In MIE, it was merely a phrasal pattern, perhaps
something like the following:
*tWa bér-es ar "you carry yourself"
*mas wewálpa-wa da "we helped each other"
*kawánam yauas gwén-mes da "we slay for you the dog"
... would become in postSyncope eLIE ...
*tw& bér&-s&r "you carried yourself"
*m&s wewálp-w&d& "we helped each other"
*kwanm yus gwén-m&sd& "we slay for you the dog"
The postparticle *ar would signify "for" (> *r)
while *de means "in, within, among" (cf. *-dHi).
The postparticles go with the accusative pronoun
in the beginning but *ar or *da cannot be inserted
within the verbal phrase between the pronoun and
the verb, so it is postposed. The exact meanings
are more like "you carried (*beres), for yourself
(tWa...ar)", "we helped (*wewalpawa), amongst
ourselves (mas...da)" and "we slay (gwenmes) the
dog (kawanam) amongst yourselves (yauas...da)."
The same "mediopassive" particles are placed after
a noun to give them a special locative or dative
nuance.
> I see no sign of deficiency in the middle-voice
> inflection,
The use of *-dHwe in the 2pp suggests strongly its
origin from perfect endings where the 2pp was absent.
The *we here is the eroded 2pp oblique *us and *dH
is the postparticle above, leaving a null 2pp.
Everything shows that the middle is simply a
derivative of other pre-existing _active_ paradigms.
> No, that is silly. Roots have no accentual oppositions,
> they can only go into the zero-grade if they are combined
> [yadayadayada]
You misunderstood. Of course I meant "roots that are
inflected" as opposed to "stems" and other derivatives.
We don't know how old a stem might be but chances
are it's not very old. With an indivisible much-used root
like *es-, chances are it's ancient. We can split more
hairs but that's all I was getting at. So your use of
*dHugHmhno- and *wertmn are derailing the discussion
because my simple inability to derive their Mid IE
equivalents doesn't disqualify my theory. In that sense,
you're being unfair.
>> Looking at it another way, a grammatical analysis of MIE
>> would bring us to the conclusion that the 3ps of a verb,
>> whether it be ending in a vowel (*kWera "she creates",
>> *palewa "it rains") or not (*wes "he remains", *ei "she
>> goes") lacked any suffix for person.
>
> No, they all have one.
Many accept *-t as deriving from an affixed demonstrative
stem *to- because it is a trivial solution. You're resisting
it because you didn't think of it first and because, as
I can tell, you enjoy being stubborn like me. Since you
want to pursue the random *s/*t sound change idea, you'll
never understand that *to- was once a general distal
demonstrative unmarked for gender, and hence its usage for
all 3ps subjects as well as its continuing usage in oblique
animate forms instead of *so.
> If that were anywhere near true, thematic stems should
> not coexist with athematic stems of the same morphemes.
I retract my statement. There is no "proof" really of
final vowels on verb roots except the syllabic rules that
are necessitated by IE itself thanks to the proper
observation of unintuitive patterns like accent
alternation for example. Thematic verbs are the normal
result of the durative conjugation, while athematic
verbs are either corrupt thematic stems or borrowed
from the aorist. At any rate, please don't confuse
the thematic ending of subjunctives with the ACTUAL
thematic vowel seen in their default durative paradigm.
The subjunctive vowel is from something else.
> The 3sg active of the root aorist has full grade. This
> is outrageous.
You mean there are no zero-grade aorists? You mean
that it's not *likWt... it's *leikWt? I don't get
what you're trying to say here.
> Syllable structure does not create IE /o/ of any kind.
I agree. It wouldn't be natural to have *o as an epenthetic
vowel. It's *a, that LATER becomes *o because of Vowel Shift.
Unlike you, I now have a reason for the vowel insertion and
syllable structure explains it. You simply reject it out
of turn but you still don't state why. Why can't syllable
structure as I've stated it explain this?
> I see what's coming; forget it, it just is not phonetically
> conditioned.
I never said it was. It's syllabically conditioned. Phonetics
play no part in the process but *a, as I said, is more natural
as an insert-vowel than *o anyday. All you can say in opposition
is that "the infixal o-form is opposed to zero-grade of the
same element (minus the infix, that is)" but your word by
itself is nothing to go on. Here you're just insisting on
your analysis the way you see it. In your mind, you can't
see anything but *CeC > *OCeC > *COeC > *CoC when in
actuality, *C'C > (*aC'C >) *CaC > *CoC makes far more intuitive
sense. Yes, the O-fix/a-Epenthesis was to avoid a **zeroed**
syllable. Otherwise what you say is senseless, even with all
the proof behind it.
The process and the result between my version and yours are
in effect the same (which you don't seem to realize) except
that the latter concept now gives the theory _motivation_
by something. In this case, the motivation behind the process
is simply Syncope and phonotactics. We know already that
Syncope exists so it's not as if we're inventing anything
from thin air. Instead we're reinforcing the theory.
> The complexity of a putative "*bHe:rst" is at the end,
> but the idiotic "a-Epenthesis" is supposed to alleviate
> complexity in initial position.
Idiotic now? :) I love it when I strike a nerve. It's the
pain one feels when something someone else says may be
on the right track. Now, you fail to understand a lot
here though. Let's reiterate:
1) a-Epenthesis only affects the _initial_ segment
of a word, not its ending. You yourself always
speak of a prefixed or infixed *O, not suffixed.
2) The 3ps *-t derives ultimately from a demonstrative,
and thus 3ps was once without ending.
Even so, *bHe:rst < eLIE *ber's-t' showing an underlying
CV(C) pattern anyway.
> Forgot your message? You insist that all initial clusters
> have lost vowels between the consonants.
Nope, apparently YOU forgot my message. I'm saying that it
is most optimal to derive all initial clusters to forms
obeying a CVC-pattern which doesn't necessarily mean that
a vowel is originally found between the initial cluster
(eg: CCVC < VCCVC).
> You show very little readiness to take any wisdom that is
> handed to you.
But I do. I just told you about Jim's Take-Out. They got
great stir fry for cheap :)
= gLeN