Miguel:
> Does this mean that you now accept the fact that in compound
> nouns, PIE could stress either the root (proterodynamic) or
> the suffix (hysterodynamic)?
I always did, Miguel.
However, in older stages of IE, it was the second component of a
compound which normally received stress, QAR permitting. This is why
a thematic noun is calandized before another stem in a compound. It's
because the thematic vowel (being *& at the time) became *I pretonically,
then peripheralized in open syllables to *i. This is coincidentally
the same reason for *i-reduplication. It's the most optimal solution.
> So why does it only lengthen in the proterodynamic strong forms?
The behaviour of *& before the accent, its behaviour when accented,
and its behaviour after an accent are necessarily different to explain
the phenomena I explained away above. Pretonic *& yielded a heightened
*I during Schwa Diffusion which further became *i regularly in open
syllables. Pretonic *& in _closed_ syllables produced _only_ *e, never
*o, because the lengthening rule only affected posttonic schwa.
Now, either *& was accented to produce *é by way of regular ablaut, or
it had become *I pretonically and then *e because it was in a closed
syllable with later accent shift onto *e. The former theory would be
most optimal here to explain how we end up with *-mén-os.
You are confused because you have up to this point only heard about
the posttonic rule of schwa lengthening and missed the fewer times
that I've mentioned how pretonic *& develops or how it behaves under
ablaut as it would have occured in mLIE.
I'll illustrate step by step with the proterodynamic paradigm:
nominative:
ROOT-m&n-s (after Thematicization)
ROOT-m&.n-s (Schwa Diffusion -- *& lengthens before voiced *n)
ROOT-man-s (Schwa Merger II -- *&. > *a)
ROOT-mon-s (Vowel Shift -- *a > *o)
ROOT-mo:n (Nominative Loss and Compensatory Lengthening)
accusative:
ROOT-m&n-m (after Thematicization)
ROOT-m&.n-m (Schwa Diffusion -- *& lengthens before voiced *n)
ROOT-man-m (Schwa Merger II -- *&. > *a)
ROOT-mon-m (Vowel Shift -- *a > *o)
genitive:
ROOT-mén-as (after Thematicization -- showing ablaut variant)
(Schwa Diffusion -- not applicable)
(Schwa Merger I & II -- not applicable)
ROOT-mén-os (Vowel Shift -- *a > *o)
Look at the genitive carefully. Understand how it is different
from the nominative and accusative. Observe how ablaut changes *&
to *é.
> Why is unstressed *& after *m and before *n simply deleted in the
> hysterodynamic weak cases?
Because accented *é in strong cases becomes zero when unstressed in
weak cases according to the normal pattern of ablaut seen in so
many examples elsewhere.
> What about all the other suffixes, such as *-ter-/*-tor-/*-tr-?
> What role does "lengthening before *n" play there?
Since posttonic *& lengthens before all voiced consonants during
Schwa Diffusion, it lengthens before *r as well. It works just the
same with these suffixes too.
> The forms that need to be explained are:
>
> PD HD AD ST
>
> nom. *'-to:r *-té:r *'-to:r *'-to:r
> acc. *'-tor-m *-tér-m *'-tr-m. *'-tr-m.
> gen. *-tér-os *-tr-és *-tr-ós *'-tr-(o)s
Alright, well I've shown how PD arises in the above example with *-m&n-.
We have an original form *-t&r- in strong cases with the regularly
ablauted weak form *-tér-. It's all normal.
Likewise, the HD paradigm is fairly straightforward because it is a
simple matter of oscillation of accented *-tér- with unaccented
zerograde *-tr- in weak cases. Again, the ablaut is regular and based
on a ubiquitous pattern observable in so many other paradigms like
*es-/*?s-, *kwon-/*kun-, *bHeug-/*bHug-, ad nauseum. Again, it's so
normal and regular that I almost fell asleep typing this sentence.
The AD paradigm is corrupt and can only be chronologically late in
comparison to all other paradigms. It acts like a hodgepodge
reconcilliation between PD and HD paradigms. The zeroing in the
accusative is irregular and can only have been taken from the weak
cases. The ST paradigm follows suit being what looks like just
an AD paradigm with regularized accentuation but adopting all the
irregularities of the AD paradigm. The last two paradigms are not
old enough to reconstruct back to the Thematicization period of mLIE.
I've always said that AD is not ancient.
Miguel:
> (i.e. *á > *é, *á: and *â > *ó/*o, *a > *& > 0, except when
> lengthened before *-z, when we have *a > *& > *&: > *o,
> initial accent rule for static roots).
Considering:
*-tár-âs ~> *'-t&r-os > *-tr-os
You violate your own rules. Apparently *á only becomes *é when
you feel like but then *& when it suits you.
> So what is your theory exactly (preferrably in a form that
> is machine analyzable by the Sound Change applier)?
I've listed the rules in chronological order numerous times. Look
above. See my examples. The rules are simple but I honestly don't
know how to put it into your "machine form" as you request. If I
take your examples to imply that the rules are seperated with "/"
with the first segment being a search criterion, the medial segment
being the result of the change, and the last segment showing the
changing item "_" within the larger context of a word form, then
I guess I sort of understand but how do you translate for example:
Schwa Diffusion:
posttonic *& > *&. before voiced segment
pretonic *& > *I
Schwa Merger I:
*& > *e
*I in closed syllables > *e
*I in open syllables > *i
Schwa Merger II:
*&. > *a
Vowel Shift:
*a not next to a labial segment > *o
= gLeN