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

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

> >That is not really important; who knows what quantity the Hittite

e-

> >forms originally had?
>
> Exactly. It's premature to group them together with the
> Germanic forms.

But then it is no less premature to just assume that they are unique
and cannot be explained in a fashion comparable to the Germanic
forms. Must new analyses be maximally surprising at all costs?

> The problem I have is that the ablaut of the perfect
> *should* have been /o/ ~ /e/.

I believe you can get rid of your problem by changing your mind. I
have done that many times, it really helps in the long run.

> And I believe this is indeed
> what is seen in the Hittite hi-conjugation, and, as
> convingly argued by Jasanoff, in other (present and aorist)
> forms elsewhere. Now these are unreduplicated forms, while
> the perfect has reduplication. Since the o-grade of the
> perfect singular is in my opinion the result of lengthening
> (*a -> *a: (o)), and since the reduplication vowel was *i
> (lengthened *i: -> e:), the solution is to assume the
> following:
>
> In the pf. sg., the root vowel was lengthened (*wayd- =>
> *wá:yd > *wóid-). In the plural, the reduplication vowel
> was lengthened (*wi-wayd- => *wí:-wayd- > *wé:wid-). The
> 1/2pl. endings *-me, *-te subsequently attracted the accent
> (after the 1/2pl. in all the other verbal forms), and /e:/
> was shortened in unaccented position: *wé:-wid-me =>
> *we-wid-mé). The 3pl. was more resistant to the accent
> shift, and retained reflexes of both *wé:widr.s and
> *wewidé:r.

This will make sheer coincidences out of the fact that three (some
say four) IE verbal categories with o-vocalism all have o-vocalism.
I can't believe that any more. I actually wrote 30 years ago that
Gothic nam : ne:mun reflects a type with reduplication
marking "plurality". I do not accept that today.

> Some related thoughts:
> - The difference between sg. and pl. is perhaps due to the
> fact that the pf. sg. originally had _no_ reduplication.
> Cross-linguistically, reduplication is associated with
> plurality (multiple actions -> iterative, multiple
> objects/entities -> plural). The IE perfect, hi-conjugation
> and middle all go back to a Nostratic stative, i.e. an
> originally _nominal_ form ("I am X, you are X", etc.).

I don't think we know any of this.

> If so, the general principle is the same in both sg. and
> pl.: lengthen the first syllable of the verbal form.
> - We'd expect to see a minority of verbs showing é:-grade in
> the singular (lengthened *a:/*u: give /o/, lengthened *i
> gives /e:/).

I have seen no acceptable basis for such rules.

> - We'd expect to see dorms with long reduplication vowel:
> some 30 Vedic verbs (10%) indeed have a long reduplicative
> vowel according to Macdonell's VG for S.

Wouldn't about the same percentage begin with laryngeals?

>
> >> >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.
>
> Is it assumed by the many who assume it for reasons
> independent of explaining the Germanic preterite?

No, they all want to explain the Germanic facts. Don't we?

> >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.
>
> We would at least expect it in a putative *n-e:m-.

No, if I had said that, you would have been quick to reply that, if
be:run goes with bar, and ste:lun with stal, etc., surely the
singular going with ne:mun could be changed to nam by simple
analogy. And I would have had to say yes.

> Hittite doesn't have reduplication in the hi-conjugation
> forms, so this explanation is not available. (And, given
> that ó/é Ablaut is the thing that doesn't need to be
> explained in my scheme of things, an explanation is not
> required).

So you're simply dismissing loss of reduplication, even as a mere
theoretical possibility? I know of no accent-governed rule creating
an ablaut ó/é directly. I do know of an avenue by which it is
created out of é:/é which is indeed accent-governed in origin, but I
do not find that avenue open in verbs.

>
> >> >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).
>
> I assume witéni is the locative? In that case, the locative
> may very well have been witéni (normalized for *udéni). But
> the genitive may still be *wednós > wetenás.

Rieken expressly dismisses that on the grounds that it should have
been /-a:n/, /-a:ni/. If she is wrong, your interpretation of the
form could be right, but then without textual support. That would
suit me fine.

> Considering the fact that Greek is alone in showing initial
> accent, and that Greek retracts the accent in other
> instances (e.g. kúo:n), I don't think the Greek accent is
> decisive here.

That does not seem to be relevant: Lindeman variants apparently
accent the extra vowel quite regularly in Greek: dúo, kúo:n, gálo:s,
gála, páros, perhaps áneu. Then kúo:n vs. Vedic s'vá:/s'uá: is
exactly like páros vs. purás.

> That being said, *wédo:r > údo:r cannot be
> excluded (I think there was a soundlaw *wé > *ú (*yé > *í),
> that affected the stressed reflexes of pre-PIE **u and **i,
> but sporadically extends to clear cases of pre-PIE *wa and
> *ya). I have claimed the same for Ved. s'únas < *k^wénos,
> where I also opt for the Vedic accent over the Greek one.

Isn't that tantamount to assuming IE *ú- > Hitt. /we-/ (/wi-/)? Why
not accept *wé-? Is it only because I recommend that? I'm willing to
recommend whatever it takes to make readers accept *wéd-o:r.

> A form *wédo:r is unacceptable (unless as a late analogical
> innovation) for several reasons: it goes against the way I
> think collectives were made [with lengthening _and_ stress
> shift], and it would produce a genitive form *udénos, which
> is unattested. There are three different genitives to match
> (wédnos, udnós and udéns), so failure to produce a proper
> genitive (one would say: shooting fish in a barrel) surely
> means that *wédo:r can't be original.

What is Greek tékmo:r? What is pélo:r? What is Toch. A ysa:r, B
yasar 'blood'? Is 'sun' not *sáH2wo:l, an original collective of a
neuter? I don't see the logic of the last statement: The language is
erratic already, so let's make it worse? Also, I don't see why *wéd-
o:r could not get a polarized paradigm with gen. *ud-n-ós if Skt.
yak-n-ás could do that, even against the ablaut.

> The way I see it, there are four different prototypes which
> can each explain a subset of the attested archaic forms of
> the "water"-word.
> I'm no more denying the existence of stáve than you are
> denying the existence of stuvánti.

Have I ever "denied" that? I have expressly addressed it in writing.
But it is no big problem: Archaisms are recessive, not all survive.

> > Could you be
> >more specific: do you take Greek /nukt-/ to reflect a form with
> >PIE /u/?
>
> With Pre-PIE **u (or *u:), unstressed. This should have
> given PIE zero, and it's possible that Greek /u/ just
> reflects a schwa secundum-like prop-vowel, coloured to /u/
> by the labiovelar (cf. *kW-kWl-ós > kuklos).

But then the consonants suffice to generate the Greek /u/? I can't
see the motivation for an independent pre-ablaut /u/ here. I really
do not know of any such thing. But then again, I don't know what the
IE vocalism was like before the merger indicated by the monotony of
root vowels.

> On the other hand, I think Greek does have a tendency to
> preserve /u/ as the reflex of zero-grade **u(:) in other
> cases, such as ónoma/énuma "name" (*h1nú:h3-man-), ónuks
> (*h3nú:ghW-).

You're building on shaky ground. I don't see why ónoma is not just
zero grade (HRH- > Gk. VRV-), and ónuks has not *-o- (Toch. A maku,
B mekwa).

Jens