On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:31:04 +0000, elmeras2000
<
jer@...> wrote:
>> >But wé does not yield ú, it stays wé.
>>
>> It yields *ú in my view, like *yé yields *í (unless *w- and
>> *y- are initial, or a *h2 follows).
>
>But -u- often has a full-grade variant -we-, and -i- a full-grade
>variant -ye-.
We have to distinguish between several possibilities:
(1) *-we-/*-ye- medially in a root or suffix
(2) *w-e/*y-e across a morpheme boundary
(3) root-initial *we-/*ye-
(4) suffix-initial *-we/*-ye
In cases 1/2, the normal outcome is full-grade *yé/*wé, but
usually with variants *í/*ú. In case 3, the outcome is
full-grade *wé/*yé, in case 4 the outcome is *í/*ú.
Examples:
(1) *dhwó:r G. *dhwérs or *dhúrs "door"; *swépnos ~ *súpnos
"sleep, dream"
(2) *peh2wr. G. *ph2wéns or *ph2úns "fire",
*séh2wl. G. *sh2wé(l)ns or *sh2ú(l)ns "sun";
(3) *wódr. G. *wédnos "water";
(4) *'-wo:ts, G. *-úsos ptc.pf.act.; *kWét-wor-es, gen.
*kW(e)t-úr-o(:)m "4";
>> The Sanskrit accent is
>> original here, as it in in e.g. the gen.sg. of the
>> ptc.pf.act. *'-wot-s, *-ús-os.
>
>The accent of the type cakr.vá:n, cakr.vá:m.sam, cakrús.as is
>strange because it sort of moves the wrong way. Still it is
>constantly on the vowel following the root, and in the type with
>asyllabic root dadvá:n, dadús.as, dadús.a:m it is fully columnal,
>being constantly on the second syllable. Now, columnal accent is
>very like Sanskrit, and not unlike PIE itself, so I assume that the
>short type set the model for the longer type in deciding which
>segments were to be accented. A columnal accent does not have to
>have been brought about by the ablaut alone, it can easily be
>secondary. Therefore, this does not prove original accent on -us-,
>for which I will assume that it is what it looks like, the zero-
>grade variant of the suffix reduced in originally unstressed
>position.
And I will assume that the unmodified form (oblique -ús-) is
original, while the secondary strong forms (-vá:n, -vá:m.sam
for original *'-wo:t-s, *'-wot-m) also have secondary
accent.
This also immediately explains the t/s alternation: an
original stressed *ú labialized a following dental, while
unstressed *u did not. So we have:
nom. *-ût-z > *-wot-z > *-wo:t-s
acc. *-ût-m > *-wot-m > *-wot-m.
gen. *-út-âs > *-útW-âs > *-wéc-os > *-ús-os
The accent _had to be_ on the vowel before the *t.
In non-morpheme-initial position, old *u merges with *e, so
we have:
nom. *mát-nût-z > *méh1-no:t-s
acc. *mát-nût-m > *méh1-not-m.
gen. *mat-nút-âs > *mat-nútW-âs > *met-néc-os >
*m(e)h1-nés-os.
The mechanism is the same, but that the vowel in the suffix
was *u can only be inferred from its effect on the following
*t, when stressed (i.e. in the oblique).
The same goes for *n, which is labilalized to *mW > w by a
preceding _stressed_ *ú, as in the u/r stems, e.g.:
nom. *g^á:n-un "knee" > *g^ón-ur (Arm. cunr)
gen. *g^a:n-ún-âs > *g^a:n-úmW-âs > *g^en-éw-os (*ú > *é,
not *wé, because of following *w) > *g^én-w-os (stress shift
caused by long initial vowel).
ins. *g^a:n-un-át > *g^en-un-éh1 (Skt. januna:)
In final position regularly *-n > *-r, pretonic *-un-'
stays, tonic *-ún- gives *-éw- (like *-út- gives
*-és-/*-ús-).
>Conversely, in
>the acc.pl. we would not expect *swé-sr-m.s from a preform *swé-ser-
>m-s if the plural sibilant lengthened; that would give *swé-sor-m-s
>> *swé-so:r-m-s and then remain that way or be shortened to
>*swésorm.s (depending on the exact application of the shortening
>rule).
*swésor- (obl. *swésr-) is not a typical example. The word
is acrostatic for some reason (usually this is caused by a
long vowel in the root, which is lacking in the case of
*swesor-. Perhaps it's because the word is a compound of
*swé- "own", and *ser-/*sor- "woman", with the accent fixed
on the first element [cf. perhaps *né=pot- ~ *né=pt-]).
Adding *-s to the acc.sg. gives *swésorm-s (= Arm. k`ors),
adding *-ms to the weak oblique stem gives *swésr-ms (= Skt.
svásr.:s).
If the plural sibilant lengthened, it means that neither
form is old.
If the Sanskrit weak-stem acc.pl. form is old (the acc.pl.
made from the acc.sg. has every chance to be a recent
analogical formation, while the Sanskrit-style weak-stem
accusative pl. cannot be analogical), then it means that
you're right, and plural *-s doesn't lengthen.
I'm OK with that (since the lengthening took place _before_
zero grade, and plural *-s cannot be separated from the
nom.pl. ending *-es, it may simply be that there was still a
pre-zero-grade vowel *-Vs in the plural affix, blocking
Szemerényi lengthening, without any consequences for the
phonetical aspect [*-s can still cause lengthening as *-z
and *-h2 do, but there are simply no instances of an
original vowel-less affix *-s]).
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...