Re: [tied] Re: Syncope

Jens:

> No, we were speaking of *wert-mn as a type.

Me:

> Type of what? Type of ablaut pattern?

Jens:

> Type of word structure, being an example of a root ending
> in a cluster followed by a suffix beginning with a
> consonant, this making a total of three consonants [...]

Yes, but medially, it was allowed. The language forbade
the existence of three consonants in a row WITHIN A SYLLABLE.

In *wertmn, the syllables are *wert and *mn. As you can
clearly see, the word doesn't violate anything. Further,
the addition of other suffixes with initial consonant
invariably involved an intervening vowel. With 3ps *-t,
that intervening vowel was the thematic: *wert&t. In
the perfect, we might have 1ps *wewart-x&, but again
nothing here violates any rules on syllabics because *-x&
constitutes a seperate syllable.

> Yes, I have said that, and it still is the way I see it. There is no
> definition of ablaut that makes this fall outside of it, unless you
> introduce one now.

I'm losing your point. What are you trying to prove here?

> So, when you write Quantitative Ablaut, you do not mean
> e : zero, for that is "Syncope".

No, *e > ZERO is Syncope whereas *e : ZERO is ablaut.
Still two related but different things.

> And you do not mean lengthening as in the nominative,
> for that is "Szemerényi".

Yes. The lengthening is compensatory for the lost vowel of
the nominative suffix, earlier being *-sa.

> I am not sure if you accept lengthened grade for IE,

I accept everything reconstructed for IE. I'm merely
exploring the wild-wild-west of pre-IE.

> Why don't you just tell us what the term *does* refer
> to in your usage?

Hopefully, the previous post explained it for you
precisely enough. I thought that the simple idea of
ablaut operating long after Syncope was enough to
understand. Guess we're gonna have to split some
hairs.


= gLeN