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

On Fri, 21 May 2004 17:46:05 +0000, elmeras2000
<jer@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>
>[JER:]
>> > The doctrine says that acrostatic paradigms
>> >have é in their weak forms, as 3sg middle Ved. stáve 'is invoked'
>as
>> >opposed to a long vowel in strong forms, as 3sg act.
>> >stáuti 'invokes'. This is "Narten ablaut",
>[MCV:]
>> Except, as I said, that's not quite the full story. The
>> weak forms (pres.pl. stumási, stuvánti, and middle forms
>> such as stus.e: (2sg.)) have zero grade, as expected.
>
>The parts of the inflection that agree with the normal type (é :
>zero) are simply explained as normalizations. Narten ablaut is only
>preserved in archaic relics. I am not sure the form stus.é should be
>brought into this, for it is a common form for the whole of the
>middle voice.

Allright. There are plenty of other forms showing zero grade
(ptc. stuvánt, stutá, imper. stuhí, pf. tus.t.uvúr,
pf.middle tus.t.uve:, passive stu:yáte:, etc.). As far as
I'm concerned, the Ablaut of this verb (and others like it)
is basically */e:u/ ~ */u/. I agree that for instance all
the thematic forms with /eu/ are normalizations, but I
cannot agree that the peculiar ablaut is only preserved in
archaic relics. The present indicative singular is not a
relic, it's at the very heart of the system!

Now I didn't mean to do so, but I stumbled across the Ablaut
pattern /e:/ ~ /0/ (< *í: ~ i:) while investigating matters
totally unrelated to Narten presents. I think it solves the
problem that had been patched by invoking analogy and
normalizations. If the present indicative was:

*stí:w-mi > *sté:umi
*stí:w-si > *sté:usi
*stí:w-ti > *sté:uti
*sti:w-més(i) > *stumési
*sti:w-té > *stuté
*sti:w-énti > *stuénti

the Vedic forms would all be regular. And so would all the
other athematic forms made from thsi root, except for the
middle ptc. stava:ná- and the "stative" (t-less) middle
stave:, and perhaps the s-aorist middle asto:-s.- (except I
need to figure out what Macdonell means that _all_ roots
ending in -u and -i go like that). I think that's a good
start.

>>> [*big* snip]
>> Agreed so far.
>
>Well, that's a lot!

Yes it is.

>> >The strong paradigm forms should then be based on structures with a
>> >long vowel in the root segment. But we often find an o-vowel, as
>> >in 'house', 'foot' and 'night'. There are no verbs of this kind
>>
>> Ahem. There's plenty of them. A sample from Jasanoff pp.
>> 74/75:
>>
>> *molh2-/*melh2-
>> *bhodh(h1)-/*bhedh(h1)-
>> *bhorH-/*bherH-
>> *dhou-/*dheu-
>> *g^hongh-/*g^hemgh-
>> *ghrobh-/*ghrebh-
>> *h2wos-/*h2wes-
>> *sor-/*ser-
>> *h2wog-s-/*h2weg-s-
>> *gWol-s-/*gWel-s-
>
>I do not accept that at all. These are intensives that used to be
>reduplicated.

I can only repeat after Jasanoff: "[] it is simply not
credible that an inherited present *mí-m(o)lh2- or
*mé-m(o)lh2- [or *mél-molh2 --mcv] would have lost its
reduplication across the length and breadth of the IE family
-- including specifically Anatolian, where reduplication is
in general extremely well preserved." (with a footnote to
the effect that Hittite retains the reduplicated noun
<memal> "groats").

>The working of Hirt's law in the Balto-Slavic examples
>has showed that, and I told the world, but it was too complicated
>for it. I have had complaints. I might be swayed if it did not mean
>sacrificing all prospects of having rules in this.

Well, you don't need Hirt's law to retract the accent in a
heavy verbal root with acrostatic Ablaut /ó/ ~ /é/.

>> My suggestion is to accept the facts as they are: /ó/ is the
>> regular reflex of a pre-PIE lengthened vowel **/a:/.
>
>The long vowel corresponding to /e/ is /e:/. That cannot just be
>overlooked.

Nor should its many-splendoured simplicity blind us from
considering other possibilities. Sure, the "nominative
lengthening" of /e/ produces /e:/ in *p&2tér-z > *p&2té:r,
nobody can overlook that. But Narten presents are already
more difficult to fit into the straightjacket of /e:/ ~ /e/
Ablaut. And the whole concept is of course totally
unhelpful when it comes to explaining the origins of
/o/-grade.

[snip all about *wodr --I knew about it, and I'm afraid my
mind is quite made up in favour of my simpler solution]

>> The few remaining irregularities can easily be explained by
>> the fact that pre-PIE had two (x2) additional vowels besides
>> *a(:), namely *i(:) and *u(:), as typologically required in
>> any case.
>
>That is not a "fact", and it is not what we see.

I did not present it as a "fact". It's a hypothesis, which
happens to be supported by typology.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...