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

On Mon, 24 May 2004 00:51:49 +0000, elmeras2000
<jer@...> wrote:

>> 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.

1. the perfect
2. the intensive (bhér-bhor-)
3. the causative
4a. Jasanoff's h2e-conjugation (is that your "four")?
4b. LIV's *dhé-dhoh1- (or this?)

The account I gave above takes care of the perfect and the
unreduplicated o-grade "statives" (4a), which are governed
by the same principle (lengthening of the first syllable).

The causative/iterative has an o-grade which is unrelated.

The /o/ in the other reduplicated forms (2 and 4b, if it
exists) looks very much like the "svarita lengthening" which
I have postulated for noun stems. In principle, the
singular of the reduplicated perfect could also have gotten
its /o/-grade in this way. Problem is that (to use the
non-reduplicating root *woid- as a bad example again) this
doesn't work:

"svarita":
*wí-wa:id- > *wíwoid (but the pf. doesn't have reduplication
vowel -i-)
*wá-wa:id- > *wéwoid (but the pf. is accented on the root)

"pf. lenghthening":
*wí:-waid- > *wé:-wid- (wrong)
*wá:-waid- > *wó-wid- (wrong)

(Note that the two cannot be combined because of the
prohibition against two consecutive long vowels).

>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.

Did you consider plurality of the object? In Sumerian, and
Basque (both ergative languages), verbal reduplication
agrees with the absolutive.

>> - 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?

I'll look into that.

>> >> >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.

I'll look into that too.

>> 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.

I said that *wédo:r might have given Greek *h)údo:r, if *we

> *u.

>> 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?

Tekmo:r is a variant of tékmar. Pélo:r (télo:r) seems to be
connected to téras (*kWerh2-s-). The length seems to be of
laryngeal origin.

>What is Toch. A ysa:r, B yasar 'blood'?

I'd say *h1és&2r > *yäsa:r.

>Is 'sun' not *sáH2wo:l, an original collective of a
>neuter?

I don't think so: the neuter is *sáh2wl., *sh2wéns
(*sáh2waln, *sah2wálnas). *sah2wo:l, if it exists, must be
a nom. animate (*sáh2waln-z > *sáh2wo:l, acc. *sáh2waln-m >
*sáh2ulm.).

>> > 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-)

ónoma is plain zero grade (&1n&3mn, like Slavic imeN).
What's curious is the /u/ in enuma.

>, and ónuks has not *-o- (Toch. A maku, B mekwa).

Again, I don't know o > u in Greek. Sure, elsewhere we find
/o/ (the Tocharian forms are interesting, because they
appear to show labialization *h3n- > m- in Tocharian.
Perhaps n~em- "name" then shows palatalization *h1n- > ñ-,
and we can reconstruct *h1no:m- as elsewhere).

Greek ónux (onukh-), like onoma/enuma, is a generalized weak
form *&3nghW-, with an unexpected weak-grade vowel /u/
(either directly from pre-PIE *u(:) or due to the labiovelar
[which in turn is conditioned by the **u, but that's a
different story]).

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