--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:
> Um no. There are two coexisting roots for "house", one being
> athematic. Perhaps the athematic stem is reconstructable as a
> root noun *de:m-s, although 1,110 days ago Piotr cited *do:m.
> That post is located here...
The *do:m form is reasonable to me. Earliest form *dáma, giving
*dám@ > *dam. Vowel quality fixed at /o/ since it precedes a nasal.
Original genitive (later ergative, then nominative) *dam sa > *dáms@
> *dams > *doms. Loss of *-s after a nasal with compensatory
lengthening: *doms > *do:m.
> Rob, check out the link here:
> http://www.geocities.com/caraculiambro/Caraculiambro/Stress.html
>
> It gives a good overview of non-Miguelian IE grammar.
Thanks. I've actually read it before :P It is a good overview, and
has influenced me in my ideas, as has the UTexas IE site.
Something to think about: Perhaps there were two stages of accent in
PIE. The first stage was a stress accent -- this is where the
syncope occurred. The second stage was a tonic accent, which gave
rise to most of the Ablaut distinctions.
Another possibility: Much is made from the contrast between o-grade
root-accented thematic nouns and ending-accented thematic nouns. I
suspect that one or the other is original and the other is a later
innovation. Logic says that, since "original" thematic nouns have
initial accent, the ending-accented ones must be later.
> There is no **kwens nor **kuns in the IE IEists understand. This
> is just based on idle assumptions and no attestations.
A better riddle is to try to figure out where Latin canis fits into
all of this. Furthermore, how the Latin root noun genitive singular -
is (presumably from *-es) can be reconciled with everything else.
- Rob