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

On Tue, 18 May 2004 01:16:39 +0000, Rob
<magwich78@...> wrote:

>> Presumably, the suffix *-ey was unstressed, and was reduced
>> to *-y by zero grade, but not before the *e had caused
>> lengthening (i.e. o-grade) of the thematic vowel.
>> A better example (because it involves voiced and unvoiced
>> sounds) is the gen.sg. *-osyo, from thematic vowel + *esyo.
>> the order of the rules is:
>
>This is a sidetrack, but something I find interesting: the dative
>suffix is identical in form to the root for 'go.' I don't think that
>this is a coincidence.
>
>> 1) *-a- > *-a:- before voiced (*-a-asy- > *-a:-asy-)
>> 2) zero grade (-a:-asy- > -a:-sy- > -osy(o)).
>
>So, in effect, there would be a triple-length vowel there at some
>point? I find this unrealistic. It is more realistic to presume
>that *-a-asy- > *-a:sy-.

Perhaps. The dative ending, however, must have been -a:-ái

> -o-éi > -õi. Not triple length, but a long vowel followed

by a (stressed) short vowel.

>> nom.sg. *-a-iz > *-a-z > *-a:-z > *-os
>
>Is it likely that the *i would just disappear?

Only after (or before) a stressed thematic vowel. I don't
know how likely that is, but it's the only way to explain
the feminine *ah2-stems, and it greatly simplifies the
analysis of the o-stems.

If *-á-i > *-á-, the o-stems are simply an invariant nominal
root ending in *-á, followed by the inflected case forms of
the pronoun *is/*im/*id/*esyo, etc. (just like the Slavic
definite adjectives).

The thematic feminines are also based on a nominal root in
*-a, followed by the diminutive/feminine suffix *-ih2. The
paradigm was originally mobile, but acquired columnal stress
by analogy with the masculine thematic o-stems. Vedic still
maintains the mobile paradigm:

nom *-á-ih2 > *-á-h2 > *-a: > -a:
acc *-á-ih2-m > *-á-h2-m > *-a:m > -a:m
voc *-a-i(h2) > *-a:-i(h2) > *-oi > -e:
gen *-a-íh2-âs > *-a:-yáh2-a:s > *-oyá:os > -a:ya:s
dat *-a-ih2-á(i) > *-a:-y&h2-ái > *-oyyái
loc *-a-íh2-a(i) > *-a:-yáh2-&i > *-oyá:i > -a:ya:i
ins *-a-ih2-át > *-a:-y&h2-át > *-oyyá: > -aya:
abl *-a-íh2-ât > *-a:-yáh2-a:t > *-oyá:ot

The paradigm with immobile stress results in:

nom *-á-ih2 > *-á-h2 > *-á:
acc *-á-ih2-m > *-á-h2-m > *-á:m
voc *-á-i(h2) > *-á-(h2) > *-a
gen *-á-ih2-âs > *-á-h2-a:s > *-á:os > *-á::s
dat *-á-ih2-á(i) > *-á-h2-&i > *-á::i
loc *-á-ih2-a(i) > *-á-h2-&i > *-á::i
ins *-á-ih2-át > *-á-h2-&t > *-á:
abl *-á-ih2-ât > *-á-h2-a:t > *-á:ot

>> fem.sg. *-a-ih2 > *-a-h2 > *-eh2
>
>Although using 'e' may be sound from a typological point of view, I
>find it unlikely that *a would first become *e and then (rather
>quickly) become *a again in the presence of *h2 (which I presume to
>be /x/). Rather, I think it's more likely that *a retained its
>central character when adjacent to the presumed velar fricative.

The point is that the form isn't *-oh2.

>> In other words:
>>
>> sg.
>> nom. *-á-iz > *-á-z > *-á:-z > *-os
>> acc. *-á-im > *-á-m > *-á:-m > *-om
>> n. *-á-id > *-á-d > *-á:-d > *-od
>> voc. *-á > *-á > *-á > *-e
>> gen. *-á-asya: > *-á-asya: > *-á:-&sya: > *-osyo
>> dat. *-a-á(i) > *-a-ái > *-a:-ái > *-oéi > *-o::i
>> loc. *-á-a(i) > *-á-ai > *-a:-&i > *-oi
>> ins. *-a-át > *-a-át > *-a:-át > *-oéh1 > *-o:h1
>> abl. *-á-a:t > *-á-a:t > *-á:-a:t > *-oot
>
>Did the collapsing of vowels happen very quickly?
>
>It appears that you have made changes in your theory from what you
>have published online (although I have not reviewed it lately).
>The "strong cases" (nominative and accusative) have suffixes
>containing an *i element, while the rest have suffixes containing an
>*a element. Are all of the case suffixes, then, presumed by you to
>derive from pronominal elements?

Yes. It's the anaphoric pronoun *is.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...