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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:

>
> Jens:
> > I have added the rule that a long vowel in nominatives (and
> > collectives) was shortened if the stem ended in two consonants

(or

> > perhaps before a cluster of three word-final consonants).
>
> This is logical considering that stems ending in -CC- didn't occur
> until after both Syncope and Szemerenyi Lengthening.

Stems in clusters actually show the effects of both processes. So
yes, this is logical.

> > The same shortening rule will also process the nom.pl. of 'foot'
> > and 'night': 1. *pé:d-z-s > *pé::dzs > *pó:(:)dzs > *pódzs >

*pódezs

> > > IE *pódes, Gk. pódes, Ved. pá:das, Arm. otk'. 2. *né:kWt-z-s >
> > *né::kWtzs > *nó:(:)kWtzs > *nókWtzs > *nókWtezs > IE *nókWtes,

Gk.

> > núktes, Lith. na~ktes, ON nættr.
>
> This is of course completely nuts, unnecessary and overcomplicated.
> MIE *-es (inheirited from Proto-Steppe *-it as attested in Uralic,
> Altaic, EskimoAleut and Tyrrhenian) is simply expected to be **-&s
> in eLIE after Syncope but there's a reason why it didn't.

Perhaps it is, but then it should be noted that the language
*accidentally* behaves in such a way that a derivation of its
nominative plural from a morphologically regular underlying form
marking the nominative and the plural in the same order as the
accusative plural would be in full compliance with the same rules
that are found to produce morphological regularity in the rest of
the language. Appearances may be deceitful, but this resembles a
miracle.

There is no vowel in the plural marker of Eskimo-Aleut which adds *-
d (dental spirant) directly to the stem.

> The schwa however never materialized in the nominative plural

because if

> it had, it would subsequently merge with the singular nominative of
> thematic stems with *-&-s. So *-es for good reason remained as it

was.

> It's origin is simple and straightforward in one sentence.

So you accept the form as *irregular* because regular sound change
would have disturbed the morphology? Why did this also happen in
words that have no singular, like *tréyes 'three', *kWétwores 'four'?

> If Rob is
> going to believe any madness, let it be yours, Jens.

I'm not stopping anybody, nor am I on a mission.

>
> > The word *do(:)m-/*dem- is not easy. One would like to regard it

as

> > a root noun of *demH2- 'build' (Gk. démo., dédme:mai, neó-

dme:tos,

> > Doric -a:-). That provokes the question, where did laryngeal go

in

> > the gen. *dém-s?
>
> The laryngeal is a transitivizing suffix as seen in *i-ex- "to go
> somewhere". The verb root is ancient and appears to also exist in
> Tyrrhenian as *tem-. The IE transitive suffix *-(e)x- is from ITyr
> transitive *-h- yielding the Tyrrhenian passive *-he (Etr -cHe).
> I observe a similar laryngeal correspondance in the collective

suffix

> (ITyr *-hWa; hence MIE *-hWa > IE *-x and Tyrrhenian *-ho > Etr -

cHva,

> -va).

The facts of IE are the relevant ones. And unfortunately only *dom-
/*dém-s shows lack of a laryngeal, while all verbal forms have it
where it can show. But if that is no reason to shrink away from
positing the root without the laryngeal, so much the better. Then I
have no problems with the ablaut machine.

> Back to IE itself. Since *dom- presumably means "that which is
> built", transitivity is not necessary in this passive construct

since

> we already know that something is being built... "a house". So I
> wouldn't expect *-x- present here.

It rather seems that roots are neutral as to verbal voice. Vedic
vá:c- 'word' or 'voice', dvís.- 'hatred' or 'enemy'.

Jens