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

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

>
> Apparently Jens is in a I-must-twist-everything-gLeN-says mood
> today...
>
> >>> 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,
> >>>
> >>
> >> No it doesn't.
> >
> > It does synchronically - still that could perhaps be doubted in a
> > further diachronic perspective, if that is brought up now.
>
> Wait a darn minute, there. Just to be very clear, I was objecting

to

> the idea that the *e in *-es derives from a thematic vowel. I

wasn't

> objecting to the fact that *-os and *-es form a minimal pair in IE
> itself. However, this minimal pair doesn't prove a priori that

you're

> right. You need to prove that *-es shows a thematic vowel but if it
> never is found to alternate with *o as you admit, you admit that

you

> have nothing to base your assumption on to begin with.
>

Nothing is easier: *-e-s is the 2sg secondary ending of thematic
verbs only. Athematic what plain *-s. Everybody knows that. I see no
grounds on which this could be questioned. So thematic nominative *-
o-s and thematic 2sg *-e-s form a minimal pair quite some time back,
certainly far enough to be of dramatic importance here.

> We both know that plain ol' *e can also yield *e and since that is
> the more straightforward conclusion, it is the optimal one. Ergo,
> *-es < *-es until proven otherwise.

Read Brugmann.

> > 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.
>
> Yes, so what? The form in IE was already *id with voiced stop, so
> derivatives of it would naturally follow, *d and all.

It is somewhat embarrassing to the theory of *-t > *-d that there is
not a sinle example of fusion with a following enclitic that has
retained the old phonetic value /t/ in the sheltered position
offered by the enclitic. This is a place where your beloved theory
could have been proved, but it seizes none of the many chances it
gets to show it.

>
> > 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.
>
> What's this rant about? It doesn't reflect your views or mine! So
> what's the point at all?!
>
> Your account is completely counter-optimal because you've contorted
> the order of the events and this forces you to level out forms that
> never needed to exist in the first place if only your nonsequitur
> were organized properly.
>
> The proper order has always been:
>
> *-t > *-s - IndoTyrrhenian where *-s subsequently
> becomes Tyrrhenian *-r
> indicative *-i - early Late IE from locative particle *i
> allophonic voicing - mid Late IE, all phonemes in final
> position except the laryngeals are
> voiced
>
> So if you would please not twist my theory anymore and actually
> take the time from your afternoon tea to understand it properly, it
> works as follows for the 2ps in *-s(i):
>
> Steppe *-t
> ITyr *-s (*-t > *-s)
> MIE *-s (same as usual)
> eLIE *-si/*-s (adoption of indicative)
> mLIE *-si/*-s [-si/-z] (final voicing)
> IE *-si/*-s
>
> As you can see, there is no need for levelling here. Everything is
> perfectly regular. It's also perfectly regular for the plural *-es:
>
> Steppe *-it
> ITyr *-es (*-t > *-s)
> MIE *-es (same as usual)
> eLIE *-es (adoption of indicative)
> mLIE *-es [-ez] (final voicing)
> IE *-es
>
>
> Jens:
> > Think about it yourself for once:
>
> Think about what? Your erroneous version of my theory? No thanks.
> Perhaps you can now glance the above list and understand it better
> in proper chronological order.
>
> You've completely misunderstood what I said and are now twisting

the

> correct order of preIE changes to suit your one-tracked ideology. I
> guess for you, it suffices to APPEAR to have disproven a theory

that

> you don't even bother to accurately paraphrase. You're irrational.

Your chronological order is of course the one that must be assumed
for your theory to escape being contradicted. There is no
independent motivation for it. But it just *is* possible, if one is
willing to accept the amount of levelling it entails (I write the
thematic vowel as -E- this time):

2sg -E-s -E-s-i
3sg -E-t -E-t-i ; this gave:

2sg -E-z -E-s-i
3sg -E-d -E-t-i ; this gave:

2sg -o-z -e-s-i
3sg -o-d -e-t-i

The change *-E-d > *-o-d is as in the neuter nom.-acc. of pronouns.
No use doubting that you posit that.

That is now supposed to yield

2sg -e-s -e-s-i
3sg -e-t -e-t-i

which we presumably all posit for PIE.

We see that the secondary forms have been completely replaced by the
corresponding parts of the primary forms. That could well be right,
as far as it goes. There is a problem though in the assumption that
the primary *-i offers a shelter for word-final changes. It does not
do that when it follows a locative. We find loc. *é-i, and *-en-i of
r/nt-stems, both with distinctly word-final treatment of the part
preceding the *-i. We never find an alternation before this *-i.
This compromises the necessary stage with *-o-z : *-e-s-i and *-o-
d : *-e-t-i. Perhaps a good reason for this will some day be found,
and then your account should be remembered. Word-final voicing is
not at all a common change, while the opposite is very common. As
things stand at the moment, I cannot rank your account as a very
likely one.

Jens