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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:

> 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.

The muddledness of plurality in IE seems to me evidence that
plurality was a recent phenomenon in IE history.

Is there such a thing as "too far back in time"?

> 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.

Right, I was just pointing it out. :-P

> "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.

True. Assuming that the length can be reconstructed for all of IE,
what caused it? And why only in the nominative singular? If I'm
correct, you postulate that it was due to lengthening in the vicinity
of nominative **-z. So, e.g. *we:kWs must have developed something
like this: wekW-z > wegWz > we:gWz > we:gWs > we:kWs? Just for
curiosity's sake, are there any other possible explanations for the
lengthened-grade nominative forms?

> 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.

Yes, the debate is still fierce, I'm afraid. I don't want to reopen
it here; we can pursue it (civilized-ly, I can assure you) via e-mail
if you'd like.

How common are the "sákha:-stems"? I was honestly not even aware of
their existence, but then again my knowledge of IE is somewhat
limited (although always enlargening!).

> 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).

Well, let's take a look at this. Two possibilities show themselves
immediately:

1. The Eskimo-Aleut plural marker *-d is not related to IE *-es, or
2. The final **-t of the IE plural marker and that of the 2sg marker
were once different (perhaps one was aspirated and the other plain,
etc).

> 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.

The form *(x)ákmons seems to be possible only after the earlier
penultimate stress rule (as Glen and I hypothesize) disappeared.
That is, *(x)ákmons was a more recent phenomenon, perhaps. There is
a word *(x)ákus or *(x)akús meaning 'sharp,' right?

> 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.

Hmm. I'm hardly a professional linguist, but is this "ad hoc"
anaptyxis realistic?

> 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. .

We do agree (as we've said earlier) in the distinction between
stressed *-mén- vs. unstressed *-mon-. However, what caused this
distinction? Differences in root characters? Another thing: the *-
mon- suffix is apparently (according to Sihler) much more common than
*-mén-.

> How would I know?

Just curious, not so much as to whether you know, but to what you
think might be possible explanations.

- Rob