Jens:
> 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.
That's a new one on me. By what exactly? Can you say it in one sentence,
preferably under twenty words?
> 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.
Precisely the kind of example I was thinking of. So we agree, alright...
> 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.
Whoa, stop. You skipped a large step. That assertion is not obvious
so it can't just be insisted upon to make the questions go away.
As you seem to agree, there are verb roots with *e and verb roots with
*o... so they are not in complementary distribution without modifying
IndoEuropean as we know it. If you are going to be so brave, you better
have a really good excuse. I don't think you do and *o-grade verbs can't
just simply be derived from perfect reduplicatives. They can equally
be valid stem forms in their own right. Just because there is a
predominance of *e-grade verb stems doesn't mean that every stem must
be *e-grade. It might in fact be the opposite for all we know or
something that we haven't even considered! How have you eliminated these
possibilities? You haven't.
Instead, this is something that you seem to insist upon to have these
*o-grade verbs go away magically. It's not logical however and the
possibilities remain your sore thumb. To that, you use the 'in our
ignorance' speech or the 'why not' objection which is pointless to
debate against since that sort of rebuttal is already without reason.
This lack of logical elimination on your part then incubates further
opposition from others like me. Now why would you want that? Don't
you want everybody to get along?
If there is no logical reason to consider *o-grade verbs *e-grade
verbs other than "preponderance", then I'm afraid your arguement is
up the creek.
> 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.
Of course, the way you're looking at it, it can only be in an
"e-negative" sense, right? Afterall, you're betting that everything
revolves around *e anyways. It's rather silly. In NWC languages with
their simple vowel systems, there is no doubt a dominant vowel amongst
them. Does that mean that all their vowels derive from that dominant
vowel historically? No. The prima facie here is simply that one vowel
dominates and this fact in itself says nothing in the end about the
nature of any vowel system. You therefore have no logical right to step
over what you haven't yet clarified or established.
>> 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.
Then what is the first "if" in the above series?! _That_ is the
initial conclusion I'm talking about and you just said you don't
have an initial conclusion. Naturally then, I'm confused about your
methodology because it seems to violate the nature of 'deduction' as
I'm familiar with. Deduction out of thin air? Surely not.
>> The nominal root *kwon- shows *o, not *e.
>
> We don't really know it's a root, but it may be.
We don't know that verb roots are verb roots. We don't know that
the sky is blue. We don't know whether or not there are elves
in your teacup. Why stop with questioning IE? Let's question everything
and go to the asylum together. Frankly, I choose to accept what I see
and *kwon- despite the speculations otherwise seems to be nothing
other than a root. However, if you don't like that one, there's always
*pod- so this is simply inane confrontation against obvious facts. The
vowel isn't going away.
>> The root *nepot- also shows *o.
>
> That is not a root.
It will always be a root until somebody finds **nep-. The end.
> 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.
In most, but not necessarily in all. You don't establish why it MUST
be in all stems. Simply because it is highly common is still no
excuse to claim whimsically that *o-grade verbs are really *e-grade.
I see *o-grade, I accept that. The *o/*e alternation is seen in *pod-
and *wodr. What more do you need? Hence, the *o-grade verbs are
simply natural pecularities of the IE system. If it were completely
regular, we may as well call it Esperanto.
I guess what the problem is is that I don't see a need to wonder why
some verbs are *e-grade and others *o-grade. That is a natural thing
in any language in my mind. Therefore there is no need to inquire
into something natural. However, the accent alternation between
singular and plural in the durative is what really screams louder for
an explanation because we should expect a regular accent system.
Now, since fixed accent systems do exist while a language with ONLY
verb roots in one vocalism don't, I think I got a one-up on the pre-IE
business. You may find a language with verb roots/stems in only one
vocalism but I can tell already that such a thing is so rare as to be
entirely useless to incorporate into a respectable theory. So again,
you're up the creek. You started at the wrong point and your entire
theory needs to be replaced with something more sensible.
> I have actually posited root vocalism //o// for a few verbs myself.
> But they stand out like sore thumbs crying out for an explanation.
If you understand what a normal human language looks like, most
reasonable people would simply accept that verb stems could have
other vocalisms other than *e, just as they do in every other language
on the face of the planet. Again, you throw universals out the window.
I still can't get why. Is it fun for you?
= gLeN