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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Sun, 23 May 2004 14:54:15 +0000, elmeras2000
> <jer@...> wrote:
>
> >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 case is not ablaut /o/ ~ /e/ at all: it's an
> alternation /o/ ~ /e:/.

That is not really important; who knows what quantity the Hittite e-
forms originally had? Further down you derive the Germanic /e:/
yourself from the vowel of the reduplication which you posit long
but is generally found as short /e/. If you're right about the
length it's even easier to avoid ó/e.

> >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.
>
> I see no reason to assume that.

I said "in case". The assumption is made by many, or at least
comtemplated, for it's one of those things where one can't know. It
can be this way or that way.

> >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).
>
> This is a genuine verb with initial *h1-, and the fact that
> we have /e:/ throughout the preterite shows that it has
> nothing to do with the type of be:rum, ge:bum, ne:mum etc.

It shows nothing of the kind unless there is such a principle, and
you cannot elevate the case story of a single verb to a model to be
followed by all. The generalization of /e:/ in 'ate' does not
exclude retention of /e:/ in weak forms in other verbs, even if the
origin is the same.

> The Germanic verbs with /e:/ in the plural preterite are
> those verbs which have a root structure ending in a single
> resonant (ne:m-, be:r-) or obstruent (le:g-, se:t-, le:s-).
> They would have been expected to show zero grade in the
> plural (as the verbs in classes I (*-oi ~ *-i), II (*-ou ~
> *-u) and III (*-oRC ~ *-R.C)). Instead they show /e:/,
> which I would explain as due to the fact that the
> reduplication vowel in the plural (at least the 3pl.) was
> originally stressed /é:/ (causing the 3pl. ending to be
> reduced from -érs to -r.s). Haplological reduction of the
> root-initial consonsant produces the attested forms:
> *né:-nm-r.s > *né:m-r.s, *bhé:-bhr-r.s > *bhé:r-r.s,
> *ghé:-ghb-r.s > *ghé:bh-r.s, etc.

Yes, something of that sort. The point is, Germanic may, why mustn't
Hittite?

> >We do not find *wednós at all
>
> Hitt. wetenas reflects it quite accurately.

In that case, so much the better, but the middle vowel seems to be
accented. It's based on a single attestation (plene ú-i-te-e-ni),
though, but the alternative is based on none (no plene -na-a-as, -ni-
i).

> >, 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
>
> No, *wed-ó:r.

Yes, directly, sure, but you might read the rest of the sentence
before blasting out your disgust.

> >, 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).
>
> And isn't in Skt. udá:, Hitt. witá:r, Lith. vanduõ.

Yes, the alternations have been reduced. Sanskrit has neither *vá(:)
d- nor *úd-, but only ud-. Greek has only accented (h)úd-. Hittite
has no *ud-, and outside wátar only accent on the second syllable.
Lots of things that would be expected are not found, because the
variation has been reduced. There may be many ways to envisage the
course of this reduction, but it appears reasonable to me to combine
full grade with accent and zero-grade with lack of it where it is
possible.

> The
> Greek form obviously has retracted the accent, as shown by
> the zero grade of *(h)ud-.

That is not at all obvious. If accent and ablaut are in conflict any
of them can be unoriginal. Then húdo:r can reflect *wéd-o:r with
subsequent introduction of zero-grade from the weak cases. And Hitt.
widá:r can reflect the same *wéd-o:r with introduction of second-
syllable accent from the weak cases.

> >> 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'.
>
> Despite Hitt. nekuz and Slavic nekWto- in the "bat" word,
> the weak form of this word seems to have been *n.kWt-: Ved.
> aktá: "night", aktú- "dark, night", Germanic *unhtu-
> "morning".

That is not that paradigm. It's like using stutá- to deny the
existence of stáve again.

> Since we need an **u here anyway to explain the
> labiovelar, I would reconstruct *nú(:)kt-z, *nú(:)kt-m,
> *nu(:)kt-ás -> *nókWts, *nókWtm (*nékWtm/*núkWtm), *n.kWtés
> (*nukWtés), which also nicely accounts for Greek núks,
> nuktós.

None of this is based on principles I know. It is not nice of the
presumed /u/ to turn up only in Greek where it cannot be
distinguished from old /o/. Or am I reading too much into your
words? The reasoning does not appear to be logical. Could you be
more specific: do you take Greek /nukt-/ to reflect a form with
PIE /u/?

Jens