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

>>> Doesn't the proposed analogical change in the thematic 2s
>>> *-&z > *-&s following *-&si thereby imply a phonemic contrast
>>> between final /s/ and /z/?
>>
>> Actually, no, it doesn't need to. If we have [-&z] and [-&si],
>> there is no contrast in the final position at this stage and
>> [z] remains an allophone. We only need to propose levelling
>> of the thematic vowel to *e based on the default indicative
>> where voicing never existed.
>
> But what you proposed in Message 32603 (Thursday 13 May) and I
> commented on in Message 32617 was
>
> 'The fact is that *-es alternates with
> *-esi with non-final *s. Analogy preserved *e by keeping voiceless
> *s throughout the 2ps.'

Yes, it's hard to say one way or the other, whether it was *e that
was analogically spread to the non-indicative during Schwa Merger I
or whether it was *s that was levelled in order to change the result
of the Schwa Merger before it happened. It doesn't matter either
way.

Nothing implies a phonemic contrast. To put it simply, Jens is saying
that *-z just happens to follow all instances of thematic *o and
certain consonants like *l, *r, *n, and *y (in order to explain the
Nominative Loss and his whack theory about *so < **soz). Well, I'm
saying that if *z can be predicted like that... then it's just an
allophone of *s for the very fact that we can state clearly where we
should find it! Wherever *z, we never see *s in those environments.

So c'mon folks, use yer noggin'. The **z is just an allophone. We
can simply use an allophone that already exists to explain all this.


= gLeN

>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>