Re: [tied] Unreality...

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

>
> > 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.
>
> And this is crazy because there is nothing in this assertion that
> is inevitable logic. We can't be sure that *o derives from a

consonant

> in some or any instances.

Oh yes, in fact much surer than of its being [o]. We can observe a
series of effects of its lack of syllabicity, but none of any of its
later vocalic features.

> You only have your *o-infix theory but this
> can still be modified to 'a-Epenthesis' which doesn't require the
> assumptive consonant at all.

Maybe it doesn't (only its author knows that), but it does not work
either. It runs into contradiction the minute you begin to specify
things. It has been falsified enough already.

> The opposition of *e and *o is not just
> an idle alternation but is fully phonemic. There are noun roots with

*o

> and noun roots with *e. There are verb roots with *o and verb roots
> with *e.

I actually agree with each statement here, but you go way too far. For
PIE, there is no disputing the phonemic status of /e/ vs. /o/:
*g^énH1-os : *g^ónH1-o-s. But on a more abstract level the variants
can mostly be revealed to be in complementary distribution after all,
that revealing an older surface alternation depending on some factor
which has later been lost or neutralized. That takes care of most
cases of e/o. But there is a residue which shows /o/ under the same
circumstances under which e-roots show /e/. That looks like cases of
independent o-roots. I have called the phenomenon "lexical o", but I
have found less than ten examples of it. And it is of course only
defined in e negative sense: a root is an o-root if no e-variants are
known. That could just reflect one the many lacunae in our information
about the protolanguage. It is even possible that they all do that, in
which case the phenomenon disappears completely.

> > 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.
>
> Presuppositions, assumptions, whatever. We don't start with an
> unlikely idea or one that could be equally replaced with another.
> We start with ideas that are sure-bets or at least the surest we
> can find. You start with complete chaos and end up with chaos. You
> need an initial conclusion to base all others on. This is logical
> deduction: If this, then that. If that, then so forth, etc.

That is what I do. I only have the poor luck that you pop up to
misrepresent it all the time.

> You
> however are stubborn and wish to follow the model of "I'm gonna
> side with this at random, and then base this on that and so forth".
> Random is random. Your theory is random. It's chaotic because there
> is no initial conclusion to base your others on.

"Initial conclusion" sounds like the thing you want to avoid. I know
what you mean though, and I am in fact doing just that. I am pretty
sure others can see it. Some have had the honesty to say so.

> > 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.
>
> Why just verb stems?

Hey, read again.

> The nominal root *kwon- shows *o, not *e.

We don't really know it's a root, but it may be. If it is, we don't
know why we only know its full grade with o-vocalism: is it because it
was that way underlyingly, or because of some levelling? This is a
lexicalized item, so we'll never know.

> The
> root *nepot- also shows *o.

That is not a root. Its structure is fine if it is made of root
//nep-// + suffix //-et-//. None of the two analyses can be motivated,
except that the latter does not operate with singular *structures*.

> There are also verbs with *o that you
> just deny because you want them to go away. They don't though and
> it's stupid to think that a natural language would only have roots

in

> *e.

The controversy over "o-verbs" is not about their underlying root
vocalism. It's about whether or not a type with (real or apparent)
ablaut ó/é was reduplicated or not. The root vocalism is known as
//e// in most of the roots involved.

>
> I don't think IE was such a language nor does it seem to show this.
> At best, it has a "preponderance of *e" and that's all that can be
> safely said. It also has verb roots with *o whether you like it or

not.

> So we have to accept that and stop ripping apart IE or roboticizing

it.

I have actually posited root vocalism //o// for a few verbs myself.
But they stand out like sore thumbs crying out for an explanation.

Jens