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

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

> Jens:
> > No, the root of the old collective is accented, cf. Gk. húdo:r,
> > levelled from *wéd-/*ud-´.
>
> No way. The first syllable in the Greek word is reduced. In

Hittite,

> it clearly isn't. This suggests that Greek had reduced the vowel.

Why?

> Obviously because it was unaccented.

No. All forms of húdo:r have accent on hú-. Why? Because one of them
was accented. The one that was accented had *wéd-, the others were
reduced to *ud-. Levelling of the vowels caused *úd-/*ud- (thus in
all of non-Anatolian IE?), and subsequent levelling of the accent
gave constant *úd- (only Greek).

> This automatically implies
> *wedó:r with final accentuation. Afterall, now we have a pattern
> whereby *wedó:r > Hittite /witar/ and *wednós > /witenas/ show

pretonic

> *e becoming /i/. On the other hand, accented *e is reflected

undeniably

> in examples like *esti > /eszi/ where *é becomes /e/, never /i/.

In your

> account, neither Hittite /watar/ nor /witar/ would properly reflect
> **wédo:r which demands */wetar/.
>
> So back to sanity,

I resent this very much!! It is not insane to assume that Hittite
has sometimes changed the position of the IE accent. I never said
the first syllable of Hitt. wida:r was accented in Hittite. But I do
claim it continues an IE form with root accent. This is no more
insane than accepting that Greek húdo:r reflects an IE form with
full grade in the root, not directly of course, but by levelling.
Thus both forms continue *wédo:r with accent on the /é/.

> the Greek accent must have been secondarily placed
> on the first syllable, perhaps by influence of agent nouns ending

in

> unaccented *-to:r in the nominative.

But the word had a paradigm of its own. Why is that not to be
considered? And what is the wisdom in dragging in agent nouns? And
why are Greek húdo:r with "accent [...] secondarily placed
on the first syllable" and Hittite wida:r "with final accentuation"
not reconstructed so as to match each other? What happened to
comparative linguistics here?

> >> So how anyone can deny the *ó/*e pattern sensibly is beyond me.
> >
> > Maybe it is. Still, I have explained it in the preceding posting.
> > There is no immediate alternation *ó/e governed by the accent.

The

> > weak form of the -ó- of the perfect, of the intensive and of the
> > reduplicated aorist is zero, not /e/.
>
> Again, so? There were many patterns of vowel alternations in IE
> going on all at the same time. In the paradigm of *es-, we see
> the reduction of unaccented *e in the plural, hence *?s-énti and
> yet another athematic paradigm such as that of *ed- shows *ed-énti
> without reduction. On a third hand, the noun *?dont- 'tooth' shows
> the original *e/ZERO pattern again!

We do not know that the IE form of 'they eat' had full grade. It
does in Sanskrit, but many verbs have levelled their paradigms. This
is not the

>
> The IE ablaut system was not intuitive and one had to learn the
> proper ablaut pattern for any given paradigm or any given

conversion

> rule to sift through this madness. So the fact that *o doesn't
> alternate in the above paradigms has no bearing whatsoever on

whether

> *o alternated with *e in *o-grade duratives or the paradigms of
> mobile-accented nouns with *o-vocalism, where it must have surely

done

> this.

I see no evidence that it did that in verbal forms that can be
credibly posited for PIE.

> Considering the complexity of the ablaut system that IE had, there
> would certainly be a motivation to abolish *ó/*e alternation but it
> persisted in case pairs like *po:dm/*pedos and *wodr/*wednos
> nonetheless. You can't skirt around this. I've already mentioned

above

> why it's paramount that we reconstruct *wednós as the only possible
> source of Hittite /witenas/. So this shows conclusively to me among
> other things that the *ó/*e pattern did indeed exist.

>
>
> > Greek pédon and péde: have root accent, so does Hitt.

pe:dan 'place'

> > but surely one of them had final accent, since we have Skt. padá-

m,

>
> Humurously if /pe:dan/ means "place", it negates your expressed

faith

> that *pedóm meant "footprint" in a previous post!

No, it would be sg. 'footprint', coll. 'place' in PIE. Hittite is
not PIE, and statements about Hittite are not automatically valid
for PIE. Are you saying I should rather derive the
meaning 'footprint' from the collective of 'place'??

> We reconstruct *pedóm in the end to account for /padám/. I would

like

> to know the exact context of /pe:dan/ considering other

forms /pieti/

> and /pidi/ (mentioned at http://www.wordgumbo.com/ie/cmp/hitt.htm).
> I'll have to look this up.
>
> We also have *yugóm, also proven to have had final accent and it's
> of the same construction as *pedóm. So this all shows that Greek

has

> screwed around with the original accent and can't be relied on

without

> getting a confirmation of initial accent from other languages. We

don't

> see this confirmation in *wedó:r since Hittite reflects the final

accent.

> We should expect that Greek likewise switched the accent placement
> in /hudo:r/.

But /-o:r/ is what we get from *unaccented* //-er-H2//. This is a
mobile paradigm, and the collective is a strong case, the
paradigmatic ablaut demands a barytone member of the paradigm here.
And we even have it in the Greek form. That leads to IE *wédo:r.

Jens