--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:
>
> On pre-IE and IE typology
> -------------------------
> Jens:
> > The typology of one-vowel IE is like Sanskrit. How can Indo-
> > Europeanists dismiss the sheer possibility of that?
>
> Both the "monovocalism" of Sanskrit and the "monovocalism" of IE
> do not necessarily show that their previous stages had only one
> vowel.
No one said they did. But someone said one vowel systems are
unknown. Indeed they seem to be, but they should not be to Indo-
Europeans of all people who certainly know about Sanskrit. If
by "one-vowel" or "monovocalic" is meant that phenomenon to the
extent it is found in Indo-Iranian, there is nothing unknown about
it. And it is not very far from the phonological system generally
assumed for PIE in derivationally well-integrated wordforms.
> In fact, we know with Sanskrit that *a is a merger of
> previous *e, *o and *a and that such an assumption is in fact
> misguided.
No one made "such an assumption" as to take the monotonous Sanskrit
vocalism to represent anything original vis-à-vis that of the other
IE branches.
> Likewise, that IE might be analysed as technically
> "monovocalic" means nothing to the question of the shape of the
> pre-IE vowel system.
It has not been styled to do that.
> In fact, since sensible linguists are bound
> by language universals to reconstruct protolanguages properly,
> might we please keep remembering that one-vowel systems are
> _NON-EXISTENT_. It's not even considerable.
Now, that's a deliberate lie in the mouth of anyone who knows about
Sanskrit. What is the point in expressly misrepresenting known facts?
>
> On the question of *do:m/*dems/*demos
> -------------------------------------
> The very fact that *o oscillates with *e shows that the accent
> can only have shifted to another syllable as we find in a
> plethora of examples such as verbs with *o-vocalism which have
> *e in the plural when that syllable is unstressed, *wodr versus
> *wednós and *po:ds with *pedós.
The majority of examples is likely to follow a productive pattern
and so have no probative value for an individual example. It's the
opposite with isolated irregularities. Internal reconstruction is in
essence based precisely on anomalies. Some take that principle too
far however, so I for one take pains not to forget to also find a
place in the system for the type that came to be popular, a fate
others tend to use against it. But no special reward can be given
for popularity.
Verbal sg. -o- : pl. -e- is found in two places: (1) Hitt. hi-
conjugative sakki sekkweni, arhi erweni, etc. (2) Goth. prt. bar :
be:rum. The Germanic preterite is the IE perfect, which is hardly a
coincodence, for that is what the hi-conjugation looks like too. The
weak preterite type be:rum, ge:bum, ne:mum is generally explained as
analogical on root with initial *H1-. There are not many examples
that can serve as a model: A candidate is *H1em- 'take', so that
ne:mum is perhaps from *H1e-H1em-me >> *e:mum -> *n-e:mum in case
the /n-/ can be credited to a fossilized preverb. Another could be
*H1ed- 'eat', giving *H1e-H1d-me >> *e:tum, OHG âzum, ON átum, where
the structure /e:t-/ has been generalized to the whole verb (sg. âz,
át). In Latin the type /le:gi:/ is generally explained the same
way, /lego:/ : /le:gi:/ modelled on /edo:/ : /e:di:/
or /emo:/ : /e:mi:/, here too with full generalization of the old
weak form with /e:/; and the very same thing is assumed for Albanian
(vodha 'stole' from *we:g^h- as opposed to *weg^h- in prs.
vjedh 'steal').
Now, why can't what is good enough for Germanic, Latin and Albanian
not be even considered for Hittite? That smacks of parti pris.
There would be nothing irregular about a derivation *H1e-H1C- > /e:C-
/ which could be used as a replacement of whatever the reduplicated
form would have produced: *se-sH2g-r.´ > */sesK-/ -> *se:K-.
> Might I reemphasize that we
> find _*pedós_ and _*wednós_ amply attested and that fact can't be
> ignored because of idle assumptions that IE speakers made a
> mistake and really meant **peds and **wedens instead.
We find *pedós satisfactorily reflected in Sanskrit padás, Greek
podós and Hitt. pata:s (dat.-loc.pl.), albeit with some propagation
of the wrong vowel, which by recompense is generalized in Latin
pe:s, pedis. Although the mobility represents a normal pattern in
these languages I consider it correct to accept the evidence as
giving us PIE gen.sg. *ped-ós. That, however, does not tell us that
the form had the same shape when it first emerged from the onslaught
of the ablaut. But whatever that was it should be something at least
capable of producing *ped-ós for the period for which we can
reconstruct it.
We do not find *wednós at all, but it may well be precisely the form
we should posit. The full picture contains *wód-r. and, for the weak
cases, the presence of full-grade in the root and of gradation in
the suffix. Rieken posits "*wód-r., gen. *wéd-n.-s (-> *ud-n-és)/*ud-
én", assuming a change of the genitive to Hitt. witenas on the
pattern of the antonym pahhur, gen. pahhuenas 'fire', but with
preservation of the full-grade /wed-/ in the root. The collective
has wida:r reflecting *wéd-o:r, gen. *ud-n-ós (Rieken *ud-n-és), in
Hittite with accent levelling on the second syllable, but with a
unique retention of the full-grade of the root which used to be
accented (and still is in Greek húdo:r).
> No, more
> than likely, the theorist who asserts this made a mistake.
The phenomenon of language change cannot be strange to members of
this list. Of course almost all those who ever spoke an opinoin
about IE paradigms have made mistakes, for we do not agree with each
other and have often changed our opinions without feeling ashamed.
That however does not change normalized IE wordforms into archaisms.
> Now, it would be impossible for the accent to go to another
syllable
> unless the correct preform of *dems was *demós. This then implies
that
> *demós was contracted to *dems later,
Agreed. I posit *de:mH2-ós > *demH2-ós > *démH2-os > PIE *démH2-s
(without vocalization of the laryngal in the juxtaposition
with 'lord').
> sometime in the Late IE period,
These language names only cause confusion. The chronology is a
relative one, and it shifts all the time wirth every new piece of
information we get. There is no point in calling the language stage
of Latin in which /s/ was first replaced by length before a voiced
segment by a special name, and nobody does that. In the history of
Greek, intervocalis /y/ disappeared earlier than intervocalic /w/.
Should we find three different names for the languages where (1)
both are preserved, (2) one just gone, and (3) the other one also
just gone? I for one refuse to refer to anything by such names. I
just read right past them, and I would suppose others do the same.
> presumably based on an unstressed form of the genitive as would be
> found in set phrases turned compounds like *dems-potis < *demos-
pótis.
The genitive is the stressed part of Vedic dámpati-; the
accentuation is confirmed by Greek, cf. voc. dépota and the fem.
déspoina (despóte:s is of course ambiguous).
> So everything about IE tells us that *demós is the logical preform
of
> *dems and that the latter popped up any time after Syncope.
It must be posterior to the loss of the vowel of *-os when that had
been deaccented, yes.
> Similarly,
> the genitive of *nokWts would be *nekWtós while *nekWts must be a
> later contracted form which coincidentally is only attested in
> Hittite in the phrase /nekuz mehhur/.
> Does it exist outside this phrase?
No, nekuz is still expressly reported to exist only in this
phrase: "das allein in der Verbindung /nekuz mehur/ '(zur)
Nachtzeit' auftritt" (Elisabeth Rieken, Untersuchungen zur nominalen
Stammbildung des Hethitischen, Wiesbaden 1999, p. 128). The
monosyllabic form of the old genitive is confirmed by Old Latin
nox 'at night'.
> To insist on an unmotivated, shortened genitive for all or any
> *t-substantives is really to fly against the evidence which
conclusively
> shows *-ós through and through. Afterall, it's on the model of
these
> genitives of *t-substantives that participles in *-tós may have
first
> been formed.
Rieken arrives at four type on the basis of the Hittite material and
the comparative evidence. She finds two types with genitive in *-et-
s or *-t-s. "Unmotivated" is one thing her results can *not* be
called. What is the basis of your more elegant view? The "shortened
genitive" as you choose to term is, is only insisted upon for the
parts of the material that show it. The genitive is still used in
this meaning in German tags, nachts, abends, and Russian segódnja,
cf. also Homeric Greek nuktós 'by night'.
>
>
> On peaceful Forum conduct
> -------------------------
> Richard:
> >P.S. I don't need to address this to the ladies - all the rudeness
> >has come from men!
>
> You're right, Richard. I will endeavor to follow the example of
> post-Anatolian IE, striving to be less 'animate' and
more 'feminine'
> in the future... hehehe >:) I know, I know, that pun was wrong on
> many levels. That's why I couldn't resist.
>
>
> On the farce called "idem"
> --------------------------
Is that wording consistent with the promise just issued? Is that
what we can expect from you in future also?
> Peter:
> >Jens' analysis is right, Glen. There's a lot of rearrangement
going
> >on. [...] With the loss of the final d on ablatives, the pairs
> > eo / eodem and ea / eadem
> >arose so eodem was re-analysed as eo-dem, and eadem as ea-dem.
>
> Fine, but this still skirts around a direct question I bluntly
asked
> days and days ago:
>
> WHAT IS THE RECONSTRUCTED IE FORM????
Are we, the other members of the list, under some obligation to
comply with your every wish? Why can we not be allowed to ignore let
a blunt question from you go unanswered for days and days? In fact,
it has been answered already: Sanskrit idám is identified with Latin
idem, meaning that the protoform was something from which both could
proceed. That is pretty unambiguous: PIE *id-ém.
> Wake me up when you found it. In regards to the issue of Final
Voicing
> of *-t to *-d in Late IE, the very reason why this was brought up
in
> the first place, I just can't be bothered confronting this supposed
> 'counterevidence' that apparently doesn't even exist!
It consitutes counterevidence to the proclamation that there are no
forms continuing corresponding IE preforms in which the *-d of
neuters appears as *-d- in word-internal position. Well, for what
it's worth, here is one such item. Where is the evidence favouring
the proclamation?
> That this was
> even brought up without clear foundation is insulting to anyone's
> intelligence.
This outburst requires an apology, given the recent promises.
> There, I think that was all the important issues raised so far that
> I needed to deal with.
No need at all.
Jens