On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 22:30:21 +0400, Âàäèì Ïîíàðÿäîâ
<
ponaryad@...> wrote:
>>>> Hitt. we:s and Gothic we:s are from *wey-es.
>>>
>>>Before accepting, it needs to be determinated whether intervocaloic *-y- was lost in Hitt. and Goth. I don't know about Gothic, but Hittite doesn't seem to have such a soundlaw.
>
>> Yes it has. Melchert, p. 130: "Intervocalic */y/ is
>regularly lost in Hittite".
>
>Well, Melchert is an authority, and we must trust him. But in declension of i-stems (nom. -is vs. gen. -ayas) the *-y- has not been lost!
That's a complicated problem. Melchert's book is a
historical phonology, not a historical grammar, so he
doesn't discuss the details of the i-stems.
In fact, there aren't many intervocalic -y-'s in the PIE
i-stem paradigm, only the abl.sg. and the nom and gen.pl.
assuredly had -VyV-:
nom. *-is
acc. *-im
n. *-i
gen. *-éis / *-yés (*-yós)
dat. (*-eyéi) / *-yéi
loc. *-é:i
ins. (*-eyét) / *-yét
abl. *-éyot
pl.
nom. *-eyes
acc. *-ims
n. *-ih2
gen. *-eyom
dat. *-ibhios
loc. *-isu
ins. *-ibhis
Hittite i-stem nouns have forms that can be regularly
derived from this (assuming *ei > e:, i:):
nom. -is < *-is
acc. -in < *-im
n. -i < *-i
gen. -i(y)as < *-(i)yos
DL. -i: < *-e:i, *-yei, (*-eyei?)
all. -i(y)a < *-(i)y-o (?)
ins. -it < *-(i)yet, (*-eyet?)
abl. -i(y)az < *-eyot(i) (?)
pl. -e:s < *-eyes
acc. -ius < *-ims
n. -i: < *-ih2
obl. -i(y)as < *-i(bh)ios
Gen.sg. *-eis > *-e:s was apparently replaced by analogical
-e:-as > -i(y)as.
The i-stem adjectives are peculiar, in that they show forms
with -a(y)-:
sg.
gen. -ayas, -as
dat. -ai
abl. -ayaz
pl.
nom. -aes
acc. -aus
n. -a
obl. -ayas
One theory is that these forms are analogical after the
u-stem forms -awas, -awi, -awaz, -awes, -amus, -awa, -awas,
where intervocalic -w- wasn't deleted. That's possible,
given the fact that u-stem forms with *-ou- instead of *-eu-
are common enough in IE, while I'm not aware of any
conclusive evidence elsewhere for *-oy- instead of *-ey-.
On the other hand, it is strange that these forms with -a-
occur only in the Hittite adjectives and not in the nouns.
I would be inclined to put the source of the analogy in the
i-stem adjectives, from where -a- (-aw-) spread to the
u-stem adjectives. And in the i-stem adjectives, the forms
with *-oy- must reflect confusion with singular oblique
forms of the feminine a:-stem adjectives.
In my reconstruction, the singular of a:-stems was:
nom. *-a-h2 > *-a:
acc. *-a-h2-m > *-a:m
gen. *-o-yáh2-os > *-oyá:s
dat. *-o-yh2-ái > *-oyyái
loc. *-o-yáh2-i > *-oyá:i
ins. *-o-yh2-át > *-oyyáh1
abl. *-o-yáh2-ot > *-oyá:t
In Hittite, these would have given -a, -am, -as, -ayi, -ai,
-ayat, -at (assuming -yh2- > -yy- was not lost
intervocalically), which would explain the forms with -a-
(gen. -as, -ayas, dat. -ai, abl. -ayaz).
>> In any case, there's nothing impossible about labialized
>> labials. They're just more likely to be lost quickly than
>> labialized dentals, which are more likely to be lost than
>> labialized velars. PIE has only retained the labialized
>> velars *kW, *gW and *ghW as full-fledged phonemes. There
>> are traces of *sW and *tW. The labialized labials can only
>> be deduced from irregular sound correspondences within IE
>> (*m ~ *w [1pl. *-men ~ *-wen], *p ~ *kW [*wl.p- ~ *wl.kW-
>> "wolf"], *bh ~ *ghW [*bhen- ~ *ghWen- "beat"], etc.).
>
>To reconstruct a distinct phoneme, it is necessary to demonstrate that its introduction allows to see new regularities in the case where only irregularities were seen before. Reconstructing labialized labials does not allow to understand more clear the correspondences of *wl.p- ~ *wl.kW- etc. Unfortunately, I don't know in what languages the reflexes of *wl.p- exist,
Germanic wulfaz, Latin lupus.
>so I'll take another example: *akW- ~ *ap- "water". We see *akW- in Latin, but *ap- in Sanscrit. If here the reflexes of *pW are found, the following soundlaw has to exist: *pW > Lat. kW, Scr. p. But if so, we must expect *wl.pW > Scr. vr.p-, but really Sanscrit has vr.k-. So, such a reconstruction gives nothing here.
It's not that simple. We know that in Germanic we often
find *p (> f) for expected *kW (> xw) and *bh > b for
expected *ghW > (g)w. But besides masc. wulfaz (*wl'kWos)
we also find fem. *wulgir (*wl.kWíh2s), so the position of
the accent may have played a role, as well as other factors
we don't know about.
>Further, on 1pl. *-men ~ *-wen. As long as I know, this alternation is found only in Anatolian, and therefore there exists a possibility that it's only an Anatolian innovation in phonetical reflexes of PIE *-me-. But 1du. *-we (if survives) exists everywhere (e.g. Old Slavic esve "we two are" vs. esmy "we many are"). Can you explain it from *-mWe?
The dual form is -wa: (Slavic -we: analogical after the 1du.
personal pronoun *we:, cf. Lith. -va, refl. -vos < *-wa:-),
besides -wás in Skt. present -vas, Av. -vahi (*-wasi). The
forms originally contained a laryngeal, and I have been
doubting whether it was *h2 or *h3 (Indo-Iranian, Germanic
and Slavic don't shed any light on that). However,
Lithuanian -vos must come from *-wa:s < *-wah2-, not *-wo:-s
< *-woh3-. If the laryngeal was non-labialized *h2, that
explains the lack of dissimilation: *-mW-eh2 > *-wah2,
*-mW-h2-ésW > *-wh2ás > *-wás, in the same way that 1pl.
gives *-mW-ésW > *-mésW > Arm. -mk`, general IE *-mes,
against *-mW-én > *-wén in Anatolian (the opposition *-més ~
*-wén was then analogically reshaped to *-més, *-mén in
Greek).
>> Hittite 2sg. -ti is the hi-conjugation ending, presumably
>> from *-th2a-i. Even if it were from *-th2-i directly, that
>> does not consitute evidence against the solid soundlaw *ti >
>> (z)zi: the cluster *th2 might simply have merged with *dh
>> here, and the regular outcome is *dhi > ti (and *di > si).
>
>Hittite 2sg. -ti is used also with some verbs of mi-conjugation, and as it is obligatory with them, it is not possible to see here only the influence of the hi-paradigm.
No, the mi-conjugation always has -si in Old Hittite. In
the younger language, there is increaing confusion between
mi- and hi-conjugations, and we see -ti in mi-verbs, and
(less often) -si in hi-verbs.
>> I don't see the relevance of English 3sg. -s.
>
>Why?
We were talking about -t in the second person, not about -s
in the third person.
>>>It is a very strange situation when certain sounds are more used in suffixes than in roots.
>
>> It's rather common, actually. To give just one example: in
>> PIE, the long diphthong *-o:i is very common in grammatical
>> endings (dat.sg., ins.pl.), but very rare elsewhere.
>
>I don't think that *o:i here was a single phoneme. It would be better to interprete it as *o: + *i/*y (or even *o + *o + *i/*y). So the example is not valide.
*-o:i comes from contraction of thematic vowel -o- + dative
ending -ei. In the ins.pl., it comes from the plural
oblique *-oy- + -s(W) (cf. athematic -bhi-s(W)), affected by
Szemerényi's lengthening law (*-oy-s > *-o:ys).
That doesn't explain away the fact that the diphthong -o:i
was certainly a phoneme at some stage in e.g.
pre-(Balto-)Slavic. It gives -ui in Lithuanian, and -u/-y-
in Slavic. I have interpreted the Slavic development (-u in
the absolute Auslaut, -y when followed by *-h < *-s) as
containing a pre-Slavic phoneme ô (analogical to <yat'> ê),
realized at first as /o:/, /e:/ and later as the falling
diphthongs /úo/, /íe/ ~ /ía/ (and then -úo > -u and -uoh >
-u:h > -y). Unlike *ê, the phoneme *ô practically only
occurred in grammatical endings.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...