Re: [tied] Re: Syncope

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 enlil@... wrote:

>
> Ironically, as we read further down that post, you
> mention *luk-eye- and the like. You state "The
> conclusion is that the -o-, which is ABSENT in some
> root structures (generally, but not entirely, the
> more complex ones), must have been once a consonant
> that was either deleted because it caused too much
> complexity or (in some special types) was assimilated
> to the environment to such a degree that it escapes
> detection." Sounds like phonotactics to me: hence
> a-Epenthesis.
>
> Yet, as for the causitive of forms like *luk-eye-,
> I have to admit I'm confused. Is the causative
> of a like stem *bHeudH- not *bHoudH-eye- with *o?
> What's the deal? Is it *louk-eye- or *luk-eye-?

The original form of the causative developed into the structure *luk-éye-.
However, since the causative of a high number of other roots with equal
regularity developed into the structure *mon-éye-, some highranking clown
mistook that for "o-grade pure and simple". The fool then began forming
new causatives with over /o/ in them all, reserving the o-less regular
forms of the structures that had lost the infix to non-causative uses.
As is well known, all causative formations can be used without the
causative function, being then generally referred to as iteratives. I
assume this has come about in the middle voice. Therefore, we have two
structure types:

1. *lewk- =>
without causative meaning: *luk-éye-
with causative meaning: *lowk-éye-

2. *men- =>
with and without causative meaning: *mon-éye-

The two types are divided according to the structures of the root.

The forms without the causative meaning are not very likely to be
secondary, since the formation is used productively to create causatives.
The forms with causative meaning, however, may well be secondary, for they
correspond to the synchronic intent with the formation.

Thus, whatever gave the root vocalism of the causative is only found to be
present in one of the types.

> it wasn't quite right. So the bran' spankin' new idea
> of Quasipenultimate Accentuation solves even more than
> Penultimate alone could do. We _NEED_ *-a in order
> to regularize the accent that is unpredictable in
> Reconstructed IE. Otherwise, the root is not always
> penultimately accented and the word as a whole is
> not confined to penultimate or antepenultimate
> accentuation. Dropping the *-a obliterates the entire
> pattern that serves to explain IE accent. Why on
> earth would you want to do that?

But if you have a predictable accent on a specific syllable counted from
the end, should the accent not move to the following vowel if a syllabic
ending is added? I guess that is what most of us assume it does. But it
*never* moves from the root onto the shadowy "*-a" of your vowel-final
root. Is that not a difficulty?

>
> The motivation that you fail to see is quite simply
> the underlying pattern that we gain to explain away
> the source of mobile accent. We can answer questions
> like why the accent alternates between strong and
> weak cases with the least amount of fuss.

That is explained already: The accent moves to the following vowel if a
flexive containing a vowel is added to the stem, but not if an added
desinence has no vowels in it. That creates complete regularity in the
interplay of strong and weak paradigm forms in the verb and the noun
alike. The distance to the end of the word is then the same in the
underlying (i.e., pre-Schwundablaut) form of all forms of a given
paradigm.

>
> > The IE word consists of root + suffix + desinence,
> > sometimes with multiple suffixes, and the ablaut worked
> > on the lot.
>
> But it wasn't always this way so it's absurd to impose
> these same rules on Mid IE or your version of Pre-IE.
> If you have the same morphological rules in Pre-IE as
> you do in later IE, then there's something fishy.

It definitely was that way already when the Schwundablaut (syncope)
worked. If you do not accept the morphology on which we observe that the
ablaut works, you are limiting your scope arbitrarily to the small parts
of the language that fit your preconceived ideas.

> > There is no way suffixation can be a post-ablaut
> > innovation.
>
> That statement makes no sense. Suffixation is a
> PostSyncope event whereas it occurs through the
> period where Quantitative Ablaut was a normal
> morphological process long after Syncope. ????

I'm afraid this is where we go separate ways. If you are not prepared to
allow for the existence of suffixed formations in the corpus of wordforms
that have been hit by the purely phonetic process of vowel loss caused by
the accent (syncope), then there is no communication.

>
> >> 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.
> >
> > No, that becomes CC.
>
> Yes, perhaps in your theory. In mine, a resultant
> *CaC simply becomes *CoC by Vowel Shift while
> *CeC remains *CeC. The reason why *mon-eye-ti
> would insert a vowel has nothing to do with
> O-fix/a-Epenthesis. It is something else unless
> you can tell me why we need to include this. So
> *mntos is the result of normal ablaut but the
> causitive simply doesn't operate under normal
> ablaut and uses full *o-grade, probably because
> it is a late inflection.

The causative is included into the full picture of IE morphophonemics if
given its proper input form. That demands something more than the bare
root. If provided with that the causative's variants also become regular.

>
> On CCVC < VCCVC:
> > Okay, that's a new formulation, but fine. But why would
> > it be a CVC-pattern?
>
> As I said, Quasipenultimate Accentuation. Otherwise the
> mobile accent is unexplained. Since the rule is simple
> and explains an unpredictable accent, we really really
> need CVC because that's what QAR depends on. As a
> result, we regularize the accentuation AND simplify
> the syllabics. What a deal! Nope, I'm keeping this
> rule.
>
>
> > And why would the language refrain from using initial
> > clusters if it has some elsewhere?
>
> I don't know. Why does Turkish do that? Why,
> those crazy Turks up to their phonetic shinanigans
> again. I'm not "assuming" as you say. As I said QAR, the
> Quasipenultimate Accentuation Rule, is needed to
> explain away mobile accent.

Okay, I went too far. But the introduction of an "initial" vowel cannot
have much bearing on the placing of the accent which is oriented relative
to the end of the word, can it? I don't see much reason to talk about it
at all, but if we are to:

Is it not a strange thing that this putative initial vowel is never
accented? And is it not strange that the language has no roots of the
structure VC- if it has CVC- and CCVC- and VCCVC-. If it used initial
vowels productively to get easier initial consonantism, why did it not
accept *phonemic* initial vowels? What *is* your basis for the assumption
of an initial vowel before clusters? Just your own feeling of what is
simpler and what is less simple? If so, how can you know the speakers of
that particular language shared your feelings on this point?

While this could perhaps be discussed, the same cannot be said of the
lightness with which you just disqualify whatever part of the language you
do not like, just by decree as always. That makes it completely impossible
for me to follow you and accept any substantial part of what you have been
dreaming up.

Jens