[tied] Re: Syncope

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

>
> Jens:
> > Your Syncope *is* quantitative ablaut under a partly new name.
>
> Since most of us can see why "Syncope" (the dropping of
> unstressed vowels) and "quantitative ablaut" (the alternations
> of *e with NULL and *e: with *e) are clearly two seperate
> things, albeit _related_ but not identical, I'm not going to
> waste much time on convincing you otherwise. The two words
> cannot in any way be interchanged and if you do so, you'll
> introduce more confusion into this topic. I make the
> distinction, even if you don't.

So you use the term "quantitative ablaut" only about the interchange
of *e and *e:? So, when we read your postings we shall not
understand the term to include the alternation é/zero, as we must
when we read books and articles by anybody else? It must be that
simplicity of yours.

> > And the question was: When that process had later ceased to be a
> > phonetic one, having instead become one of pure analogy, how

could

> > *later* formations that were only made after that time, as you

say

> > about suffixal derivatives, also be zero-graded?
>
> The process of quantitative ablaut was more than analogy. It
> had become a morphological rule governed by accent placement.

Morphological rules are analogical.

> When Syncope occured, morphemes continued to alternate based
> on the accent, now alternating with zeroed syllables instead
> of just reduced syllables. Any subsequent derivations continued
> to operate under quantitative ablaut as if they had predated
> Syncope but some tell-tale signs of later rules can show
> through.

I'm not getting through to you, not even on your own basis. You are
talking of new morphemes, i.e. morphemes with no allomorphy. How
could they acquire one? If there were no suffixes in the fancy pre-
ablaut IE you are trying to sell to us, and suffixes were only
invented after the ablaut was over, would suffixes then be treated
with a vowel gradation that could ony be observed in the roots? And,
while we'er at it, how does that tally with the observation that
suffixes are much simpler than the roots? Are suffixes less reduced
than roots and yet more neutralized in their vocalism?

>
> So, I have no clue why you don't understand here. If, let's
> say, *wertmn were created before Syncope, we'd still see
> just before the event a reduction of the vowel in the suffix
> when accent is not present, and a full vocalism when the
> accent IS present (as in declensional paradigms for example).
> When Syncope occured, unstressed vowels were dropped and
> *-mn resulted. Now *-mn was the unstressed version of *-men-.
> All other suffixes behaved similarly at this point.

Yes, we won you over! Welcome on this side!

> This alternation as we all know followed very simple rules
> and thus could be applied to later suffixes that POSTdated
> Syncope very easily because this alternation became normal
> and expected. Do I have to drum up a real-world example?
> It should make immediate sense.

You are reasoning as if it mattered whether the exact word *wért-mn
is know as a PIE pre-ablaut lexeme. It does not. What matters is
that your rules sustain a lethal blow if there were *any* examples
of that type. You have just confessed there must have been, so there
it was.

> > What allomorphs can there have been to introduce by
> > analogy?
>
> Elementary: The allomorphs of morphemes that _did_ survive
> Syncope would provide this analogy.

And is the testimony of *them* not relevant for the debate?

Jens