Re: [tied] Unreality...

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

>
> Me:
> > You wish to equate patterns seen in IE and those seen in Sanskrit
> > together as if they are equal
>
> Jens:
> > No. Never did that, never said I would.
>
> Answer does not compute. Warning. Warning. Blood pressure at

dangerous

> levels. Warning. Trying to understand.

How's this for help: I want equal rights for the two systems. One
should not erase from the range of typologically acceptable
solutions one that is actually known to us from Sanskrit. That of
course does not in itself mean that it applies precisely here. Many
languages are structurally different from each other, and they are
all potentially typological models for whatever we're going to find
for the prehistory of PIE. You are dismissing acceptance of what the
system looks like, giving the reason that such a thing is not known
when in fact it should be known to anybody acquainted with Sanskrit
and its nearest relatives.

[Glen: Given that *o is lengthened *e, what then is *e:, *o:?]

> > Indications strongly advising against the identification of *e

and

> > *o as **a and **a:. I have never called PIE /o/ a lengthened

version

> > of /e/. Others have, but I have not followed them.
>
> But *o is to be considered some function of *e in your theory, no?
> That's the whole idea of monovocalism, that one of the vowels is
> merely a particular reflection of the other.

Up to a point yes. Most instances of PIE /o/ are variants of the
same morphophoneme as /e/; others are underlying consonants; and
there may be unknown sources too.

> >> but that leaves out *e:. Oh maybe we need a triple-long vowel

too.

> >
> > Maybe we do. For the final stage PIE we do need an
> > opposition /e/ : /e:/ : /e::/, but the third degree could be

noted

> > as hiatic /ee/. I have not been able to find evidence of an
> > opposition of length in hiatus, [...]
> > [...]
> > Some say that [it is dumb/illogical/crazy], but I disagree. I may
> > perhaps be allowed to express my opinion and state my reasons.
>
> The whole problem and why this discussion has gone on for such a

long

> time is that you apparently don't have any adequate reasons for
> integrating all these anti-universals and oddities into a

protolanguage

> you dare call Pre-IE. The language is robotic in your formulation

of it.

I do not think that is a true statement.

[...]

> > Not for the many cases of change of /e/ to /o/ which are all /e/

if

> > projected back to the day before the change occurred. At that

time

> > some other o's were not vowels at all.
>
> Based on a random thought that can also be replaced by any number

of

> alternative solutions.

It's not a random thought. I wrote a book about it. It is what a
consistent analysis reveals.

>
> > Apart from a few isolated cases of apparently fundamental /i/ as

the

> > root vowel, the only pre-apophonic /o/ I know is that of

reduplicated

> > verbal stems, as the perfect, the intensive and the reduplicated
> > aorist (and, some say, the reduplicated present).
>

TYPO: should be "fundamental /o/ as the root vowel", I see that only
now. Sorry.

> Which can also be replaced with other solutions that are equally
> satisfying or better since they may not need double-long vowels and
> hypothetical *R.

I haven't seen any such yet "equally satisfying" solutions yet.

> > If that reflects a sound law it may be projected back [...]
>
> Only "if". That's the problem. You don't try to prove it by
> eliminating the other possibilities. Still these possibilities

linger

> for every one of your assertions.

Everything we do in analysis of this kind is based on
presuppositions that should be specified for the statements to be
honest at all. I do that, and this is the thanks I get.

> > That would potentially leave a two-vowel system for that stage

of IE

> > morphophonemics. However, we were talking about lexically given

root

> > vowels, and that's a different matter altogether.
>
> Alright, so you accept that a former phonemic difference between

*e and

> *a could potentially be used for the purposes of morphological

processes

> like perfects, statives, etc. which would "potentially leave a two-

vowel

> system" for this stage of pre-IE but your issue remains

the "preponderance

> of *e" in verb stems that forces you to analyse beyond what I'd do

to

> reduce everything to one vowel like we can Sanskrit. Is that it in

a

> nutshell?

In _roots_, not just verb stems (and there not always, by the way).
I am not forced to do it, I could also stay ignorant.

> > I do not feel ashamed to tell anybody what I believe I find.
> > My "unicorns" do not occur simultaneously, by the way.
>
> It doesn't matter. My theory has less unicorns at any stage of

preIE

> by far.

But no motivation. I never addressed your fancy ideas from a
typological angle. I don't think such an assessment would be valid
anyway.

> The only one you've identified is Final Voicing which might
> be explained in a more pleasing manner anyways. We'll see.
>
> Double-long vowels can't be explained away no matter what. They are
> simply exceedingly rare and that's that. That is a problem for you
> which isn't a problem for me because I leave the two-vowel system
> as is and don't meddle with it further.

A single example is always exceedingly rare. This is the story about
a single language, i.e. in essence a single example.

Jens