On Thu, 20 May 2004 06:48:10 +0000, Rob
<
magwich78@...> wrote:
>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.
I think that "original" thematic nouns had accent on the
thematic vowel.
Thematic nouns/adjectives in PIE come in many shapes and
root structures. We have:
1. a. 0-grade root, stress on thematic vowel (e.g. *yugóm)
b. 0-grade root, stressed (e.g. *wl.'kWos)
2. a. e-grade root, stress on thematic vowel (*leukós)
b. e-grade root, stressed (*h1ék^wos)
3. a. o-grade root, stress on thematic vowel (e.g. *bhorós)
b. o-grade root, stressed (*bhóros)
4. a. long grade (vrddhi) root, stress on thematic vowel
(can't think of a good example)
b. long grade root, stressed (e.g. *dé:iwos, Vedic
dáiv-a-)
Leaving the special types 3 and 4 aside for now, the
"standard" thematic nouns and adjectives seem to belong to
types 1 and 2. From the point of view of Ablaut, types 1b.
and 2a. are "impossible" (if the accent is on the TV, the
root should be zero grade, if the root is e-grade, the TV
shouldn't be accented), so it's a fair assumption that these
types are secondary (the general tendency seems to be that
adjectives have moved the accent forward, nouns backward).
That would mean that the two "regular" types are *yugóm and
*h1ék^wos. It's my impression that type 2(b) is much more
common than type 1(a), especially if we also consider
thematic verbs [1(a) is the tudáti-type, 2(b) the regular
bhávati-type].
How can the existence of these two types be explained by the
standard rules of Ablaut?
One way, which I find unsatisfactory, is to assume that
there were always two types (perhaps with an original
difference in meaning), one with accent on the root
(*h1ék^w-os, *bhéuH-e-ti), one with accent on the TV
(*y(e)ug-óm, *t(e)ud-é-ti).
But the regular type, *h1ék^w-os, *bhéuH-e-ti, can be
explained in one other way: long vowel root and accent on
the thematic vowel, followed by shortening of the pretonic
long vowel, and retraction of the accent (*h1a:k^w-á:s >
*h1ék^w-os; *bha:uH-á-ti > *bhéuH-e-ti).
The second type, *yug-óm, *tud-é-ti, in order to be in
origin identical to the regular type, must then also have
had a long root vowel. My ablaut rules provide for that.
Long *i: or *u: also get shortened in pretonic position, but
unlike *a: > *a, they do not attract the accent. The
regular development is:
a-root:
*h1a:k^w-á- > *h1ék^w-o-
*bha:uH-á- > *bhéuH-e-
i/u-root:
*yu:g-á- > *yug-ó-
*ti:wd-á- > *tud-é-
(*yu:g- and *ti:wd- are only suggestions: the real shape of
the roots may just as well have been *i:wg- or *tu:d-).
This immediately explains why the type with e-grade is more
frequent than the type with zero grade: the proto-language
initially had much more roots with a-vocalism than with i-
or u-vocalism.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...