--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:
> Thematicization is still too wide a pattern to be non-existent
> since it would cover the development of the following:
>
> *-mn => *-mén-/-m&n- > *-mén-/*-mon-
> *-tr => *-tér-/-t&r- > *-tér-/*-tor-
> *-wr => *-wér-/-w&r- > *-wér-/*-wor-
> *-l => *-él- /-&l- > *-él- /*-ol-
> *-x => *-éx- /-&x- > *-éx- /*-ex-
You shouldn't call it that. Thematicization is already used about a
different phenomenon in Indo-European, and this one is already
called epenthesis or anaptyxis. Is the last line as intended, i.e.
not a typo for *-éx-/*-ox-? In case it is as intended I take it that
you employ the thematic vowel rule to give you /e/ before a
voiceless segment here. That however is not the way the language
works. The reduction of suffixal /e/ to /o/ is seen before all kinds
of suffixal consonants, a few of which are voiceless, as in s-stems,
where we have *H2áws-o:s 'dawn', and in the t-stem *nép-o:t-
s 'nephew', with o-timbre despite the voicelessness. The rule
distributing e/o according to the voicing properties of the
following segment is valid only for stem-*final* vowels. And there
it is independent of the accent.
> What would be really interesting
> is whether Rob is gonna believe your nonsense or not but I already
> can predict the answer to that.
Poor Rob, is he really gonna decide which nonsense to believe in?
Jens