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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Rob" <magwich78@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:
>
> > No, the vowel could have been triggered after the accent

adjustments

> > were over. I derive both forms from earlier forms without vowels

in

> > their desinential segments. That makes them morphologically

regular,

> > and it makes them both "strong" paradigm forms.
>
> I'm sure that that is possible; the question is, is it indeed what
> happened?

I think so; see below.

> > Very interesting! For the nominative plural this would not

matter at

> > all of course, it's all about the accusative. It's not a thing I
> have
> > observed, but perhaps one should be on the look-out.
>
> I'm glad you think so. :) The only other language (to my

knowledge)

> that has case-number order is Classical Arabic with plural marker -

na

> following case endings.

We do have the instrumental adverbs in *-bhi and *-bhis, and Lith. -
mi and -mis, Arm. -m/w, pl. -wk'/-mk' (anuamb, anuambk'). But in
general terms we mostly cannot really cut out a plural stem in IE.
It appears to be posible for the thematic pronouns with near-
pervasive *-oy-, but some of the endings also have plural morphemes.
Is this an old system of concord? I think these speculations take us
too far back in time.

> Another problem if we follow Greenbergian Universals: the order of
> affixes in your reconstruction *-z-c for nom. pl. would be

backwards,

> and should then be *-c-z (that is, plural + nominative).

That doesn't really matter, for *-c-z would work just as well. It
would even spare me the footnote that I assume that it does not
matter so much whether the *-z is in absolute final or merely a
member of the final cluster.

> > We also have lengthening after
> > stems in stops where the sibilant is retained. I therefore do

not

> find
> > the assessment compensatory adequate, but that's a minor point.
>
> Would *re:gs 'king' (< **reHgs?) be an example of what you

mention?

> If not, what are some examples?

"Foot" looks like a fine example, IE *pó:d-s, acc. *pód-m, gen. *ped-
ós. Latin vo:x is another, Greek acc. ópa (no nom. attested), Avest.
va:xs^, acc. va:c&m, gen. vaco: (Ved. vá:k, vá:cam, va:cás with
levelling). Also Avest. nom. a:fs^ 'water', acc. a:p&m, gen. apo:
(Ved. gen. apás, nom.pl. á:pas; no nom.sg.). I would posit *H3ré(:)
g^- for re:x, but I do not know how the original paradigm was:
*H3ré:g^-s, *H3rég^-m, *H3rg^-ós, or *H3ró:g^-s, *H3ré:g^-m, *H3rég^-
s? It could also have been levelled before it got that far. -
Anyway, it seems certain that there are both length and *-s in the
nominative.

> > The nominative marker is lost after lengthened vowel followed

by /n,

> > r, y/, perhaps /m/, probably not /l/, and certainly not /w/. You

may

> > work out your generalization on that.
>
> I thought the nominative marker was retained in y-stems (i-stems)?

I meant diphthong stems of the kind of Vedic sákha:, -a:y-am, -y-e;
Avest. kauua:, Greek peithó:. With syllabic semivowel of course we
have *-i-s, *-u-s. This is apparently posterior to the ablaut and in
my view demands a special sibilant which I posit as a voiced *-z. We
have had a fierce debate over that which I don't want to reopen.

> > You mean the form in *-es reflected by the nominative plurals of
> most
> > or all IE languages was not the nominative plural? It *is*

possible,

> > but what's the point then?
>
> I think it's possible that *-es is a postfixed pronoun with some

kind

> of plural meaning. In any case, the *-es nom. pl. is from earlier

**-

> Vt (or, in my interpretation, pronominal **Vt), which would link

it

> to the plural suffix -t in Uralic. We could then posit a rule (as
> Glen has done) whereby word-final /t/ ultimately becomes /s/ in

some

> prestage of IE, giving 2sg *-(e)s. This rule would have ceased
> functioning before the adoption of 3sg *-(e)t (presumably from
> demonstrative *to-).

We are very close to real agreement on that point. I published a
comparable rule many years ago for the second person and other cases
of IE s/t alternation. Only the plural marker and the 2nd person
morpheme do not appear to be identical, cf. Eskimo-Aleut pl. *-d,
2sg *-t (surfacing as *-t, *-n, respectively).

> > That would not explain (1) the o-form of the suffix of *H2ák^-

mon-

> es,
> > (2) the presence of the unstressed short vowel in *-mon-es, (3)
> > the shortness of the surviving vowel in *-mon-. This is all
> explained
> > by the double sibilant ending. That also gives the nominative
> plural a
> > sensible marking, which I miss in your suggestion.
>
> Hmm. The nom. sg. is *xákmo:n, later *ákmo:n, stem *(x)ákmon-
> (thinking to myself). If the lengthened /o/ is due to

compensatory

> lengthening from loss of *-s, then the short unstressed /o/ is
> explained. What is not explained is the difference between *(x)
> ákmo:n (< *xákmons) and *xWnómn, if the latter is to be scanned

*xWnó-

> mn and not *xWnóm-n. So the question is, is the suffix of 'name'

the

> same as that of 'stone'?

The shortness of ákmones vs. the length of ákmo:n is indeed
explained:

Nom.sg. *H2ék^-men-z > *H2ék^-mon-z > *H2ék^-mo:nz > *H2ék^mo:n. The
reduction of unaccented *short* vowels occurred after the
lenghtneing caused by the nominative marker, so the lengthened vowel
was retained.

Nom.pl. *H2ék^-men-z-c > *H2ék^-mon-z-c > *H2ék^-mo:n-z-c [no change
at the time of loss of unaccented *short* vowels] > *H2ék^-mon-z-c
(with shortening as in *nó:kWt-z > *nókWts, or ptc. *-o:nt-s > *-ont-
s) > *H2ék^-mon-ezc (with anaptyxis posited purely ad hoc) > PIE
*H2ák^-mon-es. It works of course also with original *-c-z.

What is not explained, though, is the acc.sg. *H2ák^-mon-m. which
should have been *-m.n-m. ; I explain it by analogy: eend-stressed
type *-mé:n, acc. *-mén-m. : recessive-stress type *-mo:n, acc. X; X
= *-mon-m. .

I would tend to side with those who posit *H1nóH3-mn for 'name'.

>
> > These numerals are adjectives, so it's no great wonder that they

are

> > inflected in concord with their head nouns.
>
> Right. So where did the *-(w)or suffix come from in

**kWetwor 'four'?

How would I know?

>
> > They both are. Benveniste wanted to identify them.
>
> Okay. Are they related (one and the same), or did they happen to
> become homonyms due to sound changes?

I don't think there is any way of knowing.

Jens