Jens:
> It may be a matter of choice in the end:
Perhaps I'm a little like the Architect in the Matrix. I can't
accept the existence of "choice" here. It's an anomaly that
must be eradicated.
> EITHER *-es > *-ez > *-oz > *-os -> *-es after prim. *-esi, AND
> 3sg *-et > *-ed > *-od > *-ot > *-et after prim. *-eti
>
> OR /s/ : /z/, no analogy needed.
For starters, your solution trades a need for a simple and
trivial analogical change in the 2ps and 3ps secondary with a
gigantic need to justify the existence of an entirely new phoneme
**z. That's not a good trade and I'm not convinced that you do a
good job at justifying **z.
> EITHER *d(e)y-ew-s > *d(e)y-ew-z > *d(e)y-e:w-z > *dy-e:w-s, AND
> *k^l(e)-ne-w-s > *k^l(e)-ne-w-z > *k^l(e)-ne:-w-z > *k^lne:ws ->
> *k^lnews after prim. *k^lnews-i
No because [-z] does not lengthen in my theory at all. Lengthening
is from something else entirely. So this is a false issue that
is created out of your biased assumptions. Putting aside the levelling,
everything here is expected and we do not expect *klneus [klneuz] to
have lengthened *e at all.
Szemerenyi Lengthening must logically have occurred around the time of
Syncope and has to do with Clipping. Lengthening occurs by compensation
wherever monosyllabic morphemes have unexpectedly lost their only
vowel, as we find with the nominative (*-sa > *-s) and aorist
(*-es- > *-s-). So in my theory, there is no justification for a
lengthening **z, nor is there for a lengthening z-allophone.
> IF influence from primary on secondary forms of the verb is assumed,
> this raises another question: Why are the long-diphthong roots
> consistently processed on the basis of the secondary forms? This is
> seen in, e.g., Skt. pá:ti 'guards' from *peH2-t with regular loss
> of /y/ in *peH2y-t, while no such reduction should occur in *peH2y-
> ti.
Simple: Phonotactics and syllable shape, that is if this disappearance
of *y exists at all and isn't just a Jenz-ism. Counting the differeing
number of syllables between the two alone suffices to explain their
divergeant paths, not to mention the difference in syllabic shape that
this number difference causes.
> There is also the /s/ of the s-aorist which turns up with
> lengthening of the root vowel, but is never word-final.
Yes, that's from Szemerenyi Lengthening (Clipping), not **z. Only you
insist on this ridiculous connection between voicing and lengthening.
You have yet to prove the assumptive connection. I see *s and, no,
**z is not the only solution to explain all this lengthening.
= gLeN