On Sat, 15 May 2004 00:39:40 +0000, elmeras2000
<
jer@...> wrote:
>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:
>
>> Jens:
>> > Of corse they are different: the nom.pl. ending *-es is that of
>> > athematic paradigms, so why would that contain the thematic
>vowel?
>>
>> Ironic considering that you argue for a thematic vowel *i in an
>> athematic feminine, eh? Oh, perhaps that was another wrong tree
>> to bark up :P
>
>The tree is fine, but *-iH2 is also thematic (in deví: and quite
>generally in vrddhi derivatives where it is PIE according to
>Wackernagel-Debrunner).
Vrddhi derivatives with a thematic masculine form make their
feminine with *-ih2. That doesn't make *-ih2 thematic
anymore than the fact that feminines of *nt-stems are made
with *-ih2 makes *ih2-words *nt-stems.
Thematic feminines end in *-eh2, which is derived from
thematic vowel *-e- + feminine suffix *-ih2.
>> But granted the solution is subtle so I wouldn't
>> blame you for not seeing it. The fact is that *-es alternates with
>> *-esi with non-final *s. Analogy preserved *e by keeping voiceless
>> *s throughout the 2ps. The same devoicing must have occurred in the
>> 3ps since *-et again alternates with *-eti and since inanimate *-d
>> lacks a medial counterpart, thereby keeping its voicing.
>
>That is only possible if it is *assumed* that the ending of the
>neuter sg. nom.-acc. was not *-d already, but only became *-d by
>change of an older *-t. At best, nothing is known about that; if
>some of the evidence is pertinent it was //d//, cf. Ved. idám, Lat.
>idem, Goth. ita. If 2sg *-s and 2pl *-te are related in a way
>parallel to 1sg *-m and 1pl *-me, the 2sg *-s specifically reflects
>a word-final development. That would now be expected to lead to *-z
>and take a thematic form *-o-z, primary *-e-t-i, which could be
>levelled to *-o-s, *-o-s-i or *-e-t, *-e-t-i according to your
>principle of a ban on different vowel or different consonant in the
>primary and secondary forms of otherwise identical forms. None of
>this happened, so *-e-s, *-e-s-i never had a voiced consonant.
>
>Think about it yourself for once: If original *-V-t became *-e-t
>before the change of *-t to *-s, and the presumed voicing of the
>resulting *-e-s to *-e-z was later still (and the devoicing back to
>*-e-s even later), then the presumed voicing in *tV-t could not lead
>to *to-d, but would become *te-s (> *te-z > *te-s). Alternatively,
>if the "t" of the ending did not assibilate (because there were two
>different t's and that option is better liked than the asumption of
>two different s's), the form *tV-t would give *te-t, then *te-d,
>whence *te-t. What we find looks quite a bit more like *tod. So that
>is also wrong.
>
>There remains: 2sg *-e-s : *-e-s-i; nom.sg. *-o-z > *-o-s; ntr.sg.
>*to-d; 3sg *-e-t : *-e-t-i. On a more abstract level, i.e. in an
>earlier stage, the 2sg *-s has arisen out of a word-final *-t, while
>the 3sg *-t has arisen out of something else, apparently something
>containing a nasal feature (a prenasalized /Nd/?).
Why "apparently"?? There's nothing nasal about the 3sg., as
far as I can see.
There are several issues here. If we accept the thematic
vowel rule (e > o before voiced), then the nom.sg.masc.
ending *-s must go back to *-z, the n.NA.sg. pron. ending
must be *-d, but the 2sg. and 3sg. verbal endings must be
voiceless *-s, *-t, and also the Npl. ending and the
feminine suffix must have voiceless *-h2. That explains the
thematic forms *-os, *-od, *-es, *-et, *-eh2.
As to the origin of these endings, we can claim ignorance
and leave it at that, but I am not quite able to close my
eyes to the following facts:
(1) The masc. nom. sg. is *-z and the (pronominal) n. NA sg.
is *-d, while the corresponding demonstrative pronouns are
*so and *to-d. This can be no coincidence. The most
plausible scenario is that the masc. and neuter endings
derive from what earlier were forms extended with a definite
article, derived from the pronoun *so/*to.
(2) The 2sg. verbal ending *-s (2pl. *-te-) must be
connected to the 2sg. personal pronoun *tu.
(3) The 3sg. verbal ending *-t must be a later addition to
the system: it is optional in the middle, and in the 3pl. it
is added _after_ the plural marker *-én-. In the 3pl.
middle the forms consequently have *-en > *-r- and *-en-t- >
*-nt-.
(4) The third person preterite shows unmistakeable traces of
an ending 3sg. *-s, 3pl. *-er-s > *-r.s/*-é:r. Again, the
occurrence of *-t and *-s as 3rd. person verbal suffixes
points to a connection with the demonstrative pronoun
*so/*to, with grammaticalization of *-t in the present and
the thematic forms, *-s in the preterit forms.
(5) The neuter "collective" plural them. *-eh2, ath. *-h2
cannot be the same the feminine suffix them. *-eh2, ath.
*-ih2.
As to the voicing or not of *-t, *-s, *-h2 in final
position, the forms derived from *so/*to (and *tu) show
voicing (*-z, *-d) in the nominal forms (nom.sg., NA n.
sg.), no voicing in the verbal forms (2/3 sg. *-s, 3sg.
*-t). PIE was SOV, so that's quite understandable: there
was no voicing in sentence-final position.
As I had originally formulated the final voicing rule, it
only affected asyllabic endings. That means that G.sg.
*-Vs, Abl/Ins sg. *-Vt, feminine *-ih2 and nom.pl. *-es(W)
were not affected. This can be confirmed for the ins.sg.
(*-éh1 < *-ét, not *-éd), the feminine (thematic *-eh2, not
*-oh2) and the nom.pl. (Arm -k` < *-esW, not *-ezW [which
would have given -r]). The Abl. ending, however, seems to
be *-ood in Slavic, not *-oot. Another problem is the
neuter coll. "plural", which, being asyllabic, should have
yielded *-G, thematic *-oG. Athematic *-G > *-h2/*-&2 is no
problem (cf. nom.sg. *-z > *-s), but the thematic n.pl.
should have been *-oh2 instead of *-eh2. I'm not actually
aware of any evidence for *-eh2 rather than *-oh2 (Skt. -a:,
OCS -a, Goth. -a can be from either, Greek and Latin, which
could have decided the issue, have short (athematic) -a), so
it might not be a problem after all.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...