Re: [tied] Bader's article on *-os(y)o

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

> Jens:
> > It *may* suffice to assume /s/ -> [z] __# , provided something

else

> > is assumed for s/t -> [s] __#, as in the 2sg in *-e-s. However,
> > nothing proves that this is the (or, a) correct solution. In case

it

> > is not, and *-o-s vs. *-e-s does reflect two earlier discrete
> > phonemes, the "superior stance" leads to "[n]othing but" loss.
>
> Wrong. We don't know whether the *o in the nominative singular

thematic

> *-o-s and the *e in plural *-es derive from the same vowel. Common
> sense would have us begin by presuming what we see: two _different_
> vowels. We also begin with only *s (no **z)... again, that which we
> see.

Of corse they are different: the nom.pl. ending *-es is that of
athematic paradigms, so why would that contain the thematic vowel? As
always, the wrong tree is being barked up: We were talking about the
*-e-s of the 2sg of verbs which is *only* found with thematic stems
and therefore must contain the thematic vowel. That makes nom.sg. *-os
and 2sg *-es a minimal pair, even on an abstract level where the
special status of the thematic vowel is considered. On that level the
interesting difference can only reside in the consonant.

> It seems that the oscillation of *o with *e in the thematic paradigm
> would appear to guarantee that we're dealing with an originally
> single vowel that was transformed before voiced *s. This conclusion
> merely necessitates an allophone [z] of *s which already exists in
> *nisdos.
>
> To me, this is a seperate vowel *&, the process was lengthening as

we

> find in a number of languages, and only this vowel caused the
> e/o-effect. Simplicity is key.

Even under that theory, a putative dose of length imparted on the
vowel of nom.sg. *-o-s, but not on the vowel of 2sg *-e-s must reflect
a difference between two different sources of the *-s. It is not
simple to have the same element behave by mutually contradicting
rules.

> That's how I can explain *-es without **z since it merely derives
> from earlier *-es [-ez] while *-o-s is from earlier *-&-s [-&-z].
> (Further comparisons outside of IE confirm the *e since it reflects
> Proto-Steppe *i. Thus Steppe plural *-it > Tyr *-er; IE -es; Uralic
> *-(i)t; Altaic *ir^. Now, the ENTIRE array of facts are accounted
> for.)

Yes you do, but you forget we are talking about the second person of
the thematic verb.

> So your statement, "However, nothing proves that this is the (or, a)
> correct solution. In case it is not, [...]," is misleading. My
> above account cannot be disproven, nor is it unlikely, and yet it
> contradicts the need for **z while strengthening IE's connection
> to external language groups. Your theory falls flat and doesn't
> appear to have any purpose, the least of which is an adequate
> explanation of all the facts.

Not if one sticks to the point all through an argument. If you are at
liberty to change the subject halfway through you can prove anything,
if to nobody's satisfaction.

> While I don't see anything disproving either of our viewpoints on

this

> so far, it still remains that **z is an added indulgeance that is

not

> shown to be necessary in PreIE.

The viewpoint that the two sibilants are originally identical is
disproved by the fact that the thematic vowel is *-o- before a
nominative marker *-s, but *-e- before a 2sg marker *-s. That
indicates that the two markers were originally not identical.

> You continue to insist to us that it is necessary. Yet, the

unanswered

> question persists: "Why?" Why must **z be anything other than an
> allophone of *s.

Why? Because the subject is the one we're talking about. In two
thematic inflections, both alternating -e-/-o- in dependency of +/-
voice in the following segment, we have both *-o-s and *-e-s. That is
not compromised by reference to an athematic nominative which has only
*-es.

Jens