On Thu, 20 May 2004 17:31:35 -0700 (PDT),
enlil@... wrote:
>Rob:
>> I'd like to give what I think is a possible explanation:
>>
>> *-mé:n < *-méns < *-máns
>> *´-mo:n < *´-mons < *´-m@... (< *´-mans ?)
>> *-té:r < *-térs < *-társ
>> *´-to:r < *´-tors < *´-t@... (< *´-tars ?)
>>
>> What do you think?
>
>It's essentially my theory.
Oh come on. It's essentially Jens' theory. Rob, like Jens
and myself, has the common sense to recognize that there was
only _one_ suffix *-mVn- (or *-tVr-), which developed in two
different ways according to the accent. None of that
nonsense about two different suffixes.
What would be interesting is to know how Rob explains the
accusative forms *-ménm., *'-monm. (*-térm., *'-torm.).
That's where the difference of opinion between Jens and
myself lies.
We know that unstressed */e/ (or */a/, the notation doesn't
really matter) normally becomes zero.
In the nominative, the lengthening effect of *-z (or *-s,
whichever notation you prefer), _can_ be used to explain the
development /e/ > /o/ in unstressed position.
In the accusative, that is not possible. We would expect
the unstressed variants to have *-mn-m. (*-tr-m.) instead of
attested *-mon-m. (*-tor-m.). Jens explains this as analogy
after the nominative (with a handful of "original"
accusatives preserved, such as Old Persian pathim (<
*pónth2m.)).
My explanation is that the -o- both in nom. *h2ák^-mOn-z,
acc. *h2ák^-mOn-m, and in oblique forms such as gen.
*&2k^-mén-Os, etc. is a special development (lengthening) of
/e/ in posttonic (svarita) position, completely independent
of nominative lengthening (which gives /e/ > /e:/ and must
therefore be later than /a/ > /o:/ > /o/). In a previous
posting I already gave my view on accusatives such as
*pónt-h2-m., where the unstressed suffix vowel goes to zero
normally [it's because the root *pónt- is both long (*ú: >
ó) and heavy (*-nt), so svarita lengthening is blocked].
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...