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

Richard:

> The problem is that there isn't a great deal of evidence at _my_
> disposal. The present stem of all the Greek athematic verbs I can
> think of ends in a vowel (not -l/n/r) and I don't understand the 2s
> imperfect of Greek eîmi 'go'.

But wasn't there previous talk about Latin /fers/ showing that it
was Latin-unique? I thought the proper non-indicative 2ps of *bHer-
is *bHer-e-s. The 2ps of *ei- would be *eisi or nonindicative *eis,
no?


Richard:

> You are libelling me again. Logic is not invalid because the
> premiss is false; false premisses simply result in unproven
> conclusions.

Alright, what did I miss?

>> No, I told you. The 2ps *-es is by analogy with *-esi.
>
> I presume that means we don't get the contrast out of one vowel
> and one consonant. You appear to be saying that the 2s in *-es was
> refashioned after the length distinction in the thematic vowel
> ceased to be allophonic. The only real justification then for not
> saying that **-/os/ (equivalent to **-/as/) was replaced by *-es is
> that thematic *o and some non-thematic *o were distinct in PIE -
> Brugmann's law does not apply to thematic vowels.

I am saying that "the 2s in *-es was refashioned after the length
distinction in the thematic vowel ceased to be allophonic", yes.

So former [-&si/-&.z] which started to steer away from each other
because of Schwa Diffusion, was levelled to *-esi/*-es [-esi/-ez]
during the Schwa Merger when phonemicization of the schwa variants
was occurring. So yes, before Schwa Merger, *& (which produced both
*e and *o) and *a (which usually produced *o) were distinct.

(Post-Syncope *& is not the same as the schwa which disappeared by
Syncope from MIE *a. Rather *& is largely the surviving remnant of
MIE *e.)

As for Brugmann's Law, this is something _post-IE_ which has nothing to
do with my theory necessarily. Your issue here is with IE itself, not
my pre-IE which is meant to account for IE as it stands. It would be
intriguing if the thematic vowels turned out to show up in IE as
distinct from *e and *o though.

I think you _do_ understand me and it brings a tear to my eye :)

> Should I counsel you to get some rest and keep taking the pills?

Pills, yummy.

> Nostratic *t ~*s > PIE **s ~**z in PIE final position. (I presume
> you think I meant Nostratic **s ~**z).

All I see is that you're comparing languages that are so far distant
to each other that there's no point mentioning it when it's beyond
your full understanding. You assert this oscillation but have no
evidence? Sounds like you need the pills more than me.


= gLeN