> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:
>
>> If the word is postSyncope, *wertmn could be based on
>> another word with the same pattern that DID survive
>> Syncope, a word like *kwo:ns, so I don't know how you're
>> saying that I've been proven false.
>
> What features of *k^wó:n can *wértm.n possibly have copied?
Ugh! Look at Turkish. See how all words are stuffed into
the vowel harmony machine? Why is it that all these words
insist on vowel harmony? It's because vowel harmony is the
process existent in Turkish. Vowels must agree with each
other in quality.
Are Turks mental coocoo people that don't know how to
speak a language properly or are they just following a
pattern that reoccurs over and over in every other language?
Turkish is far too normal in fact.
Same with IE. IE had a process too. We call this process
"ablaut". It operated to shape every single word in that
language just like vowel harmony shapes words in Turkish.
The rule eroded over time. New words like *suxnu- were
then allowed. Simple.
On nominative *-s:
> I see it but remain very dissatisfied, for it just is not
> a way this language can be seen to operate.
Which is wrong. Demonstratives were used also to mark the
indicative (*-i < *i-), the 3ps (*-t < *to-) and the
thematic genitive (*-syo < *-os + *yo-). It very much
_is_ the way this language operates and these examples
prove this.
> Yes, it's circular. I must have protested against this
> a million times by now: I cannot accept that a stem
> is used as a case-marking desinence, and for *to-d even
> the same stem as the stem it is glued on to.
I heard your objections a million times now too but they're
misguided. 1) A stem CAN be used as a case-marking desinence
-- Swedish shows this, and 2) *tod was only affixed with
*-d when *-d was divorced from its etymology from *to-. So
*tod is not *to + *to. It's *to- "that [inanimate]" + *-d
[inanimate].
None of your arguements therefore are substantiated. Only
your objections are circular.
> Why not *so-s, *to-d, i.e. "this-this", "that-that",
Because *so was inheirantly animate to begin with, being
the postparticle that marked the animate nominative from
IndoTyrrhenian times. The other stem *to- was originally
non-specific for gender proven by its use in a general
3ps. Now *so interloped and was introduced into the
paradigm of *to- to take over the animate nominative
(because that's what it was if it was being used as
a postparticle for the animate nominative!). So earlier
*ta was trivially replaced by *sa (*sa (animate nom)
but *tam (acc) and *ta as inanimate). Now we see an
opposition between animate *sa and inanimate *ta, but
by this time 3ps had become *-t by Syncope and was
divorced from its etymology. So was the inanimate in
*-t. The 3ps developped an indicative *-ti and inanimate
*-t remained. By mLIE, *-t was voiced to *-d as were
all terminating consonants but 3ps *-ti retained *t
because it was medial, preserving *-t as well by
analogy. It was at _this_ point that inanimate *ta
was given *-d. Hence *tad > *tod.
So why didn't *so become *sos? Because of duplication.
IE hated using the same phoneme in both the beginning
and end of a syllable and often avoided it at all costs.
A form like **sos would never have arisen just as
there is no verb **mem- or **tet-.
Everything you say works against what we know of IE.
Ironic considering that this is what you accuse me
of doing.
> If you call this "completely resolved" you are not
> demanding much.
No need to be greedy. Avarice gets us nowhere.
The rules work for a wide array of examples. It's the
versatility of QAR and Syncope that proves that *-od
is indeed related to Uralic *-ta.
>> No. Is that bad? Does Japanese have asyllabic endings?
>
> No, come to think of it, nor does Slavic. But these languages only
> have open syllables if I am correctly informed, and that is not the
> case with your pre-ablaut IE. I couldn't say it's necessarily fatal,
> but it strikes me as strange and unnecessarily complicated.
But never as strange as double-long vowel, so I feel okay
about it.
>> Well I suppose but it is an irregularity in relation to
>> the expectation of having *-s everywhere. Since we don't
>> find *-s everywhere, it is irregular in that manner of
>> speaking.
>
> Then rules are irregular. Your language gets harder and
> harder to use.
I don't what you're talking about now. I'm just saying
that I have no proper explanation yet for the disappearance
of *-s after *n/*r/*l/*y, although I do notice that the
phonemes involved are continuant and non-labial. What that
means, I don't know but it's at least a pattern. And a
pattern is a beginning.
= gLeN