Re: [tied] Unreality...

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

> > 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 that's the *same* root! So that cannot be an example of an "o-
root".

> > 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.

We do not know IE all that well. I have myself posited IE *lowH1-
'wash' and *ghos- 'eat as a guest' as roots with lexical //o//. The
main basis is *low&1-tro-m 'wash basin' and *ghós-ti-s 'guest' which
are word formations of a type generally showing the fundamental
vowel of the root. Even for these types, however, as recently
insisted by Vine, there *are* examples with -o- from roots with e-
vocalism. So if some have to be explained by analogy or some effect
of accent jumping (retraction onto a vowel just half reduced?), why
not all?

> 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.

Would you mention an example? I really do not know exactly what you
have in mind.

> 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!

What would be the opposite of "every root having e-vocalism"?? No
roots having e?

> How have you eliminated these
> possibilities? You haven't.

I have not eliminated the possibility that the root vocalism was an
octopartite system of 24 l's, 25 l's, 26 l's, 27 l's, 28 l's, 29
l's, 30 l's and 31 l's which later all gave -e-, except that 26 l's
became -o- between l and w, and 30 l's became o between gh and s.
I'm sorry, I left that out of consideration.

> 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.

That's not a fair statement. You cry for the consideration of
further possibilities. So when I give you possibilities, that is
wrong.

> 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?

Not everybody's praise is worth coveting.

> 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'm afraid we're down to Occam here.

> > 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.

So you define an o-root. What is that, and where do we find one?

> 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.

So what? That's a different language, and it may even be wrong.

> 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.

Are we to specify elements we do not see? And as what? The vocalism
of the perfect is /o/ with all roots, so that is not diagnostic for
the identoty of the root vowel. How can you know that an isolated
case of -o- where almost all other roots have -e- is not due to
transfer from the perfect or from some other o-category that just
neutralizes the root vocalism?

> >> 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.

I use induction. Then, when a safe enough basis has been established
by that, deduction. Then induction again, and so on.

>
> >> 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.

It is a stem. That is what you see, and that is what should be
accepted.

> 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.

*pod- is not the invariable full grade form of that root. There is
also *ped-.

> >> The root *nepot- also shows *o.
> >
> > That is not a root.
>
> It will always be a root until somebody finds **nep-. The end.

It's a stem.

> > 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.

No, for I haven't said that.

> 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.

So you do not want the language to be analyzed? I'm not sure I can
humour you in that, though of course on many points I can, because
this is hard.

> 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.

Well, fine help you are!

> 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.

It *is* regular.

> 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.

IE languages are very close to actually showing that. Think of the
strong verbs of Germanic. Verbs also look mighty standardized in
Semitic.

> So again,
> you're up the creek.

The place to be.

> You started at the wrong point and your entire
> theory needs to be replaced with something more sensible.
>

Feel free.

> > 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.

No, I'm addressing the problems associated with them.

> I still can't get why. Is it fun for you?

Sort of.

Jens