Re: [tied] Unreality...

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 enlil@... wrote:

> Jens:
> > But that's the *same* root! So that cannot be an example of an "o-
> > root".
>
> Erh, but no. The words *genhos and *gonhos are not exactly the same.
> They are two seperate words that happen to be from the same root. If
> we say that *genhos and *gonhos are from the same root and therefore
> that *e and *o are the same, then we can use that same absurd arguement
> in English and say that "spin" and "spun" show that /I/ and /^/ are
> the same vowel. I'm not willing to do that. So let's just accept the
> phonemic status as we see it. Let's accept *e and *o as seperate vowels.

You are formulating the problem here, not pointing to a solution. Right or
wrong, the o-infix offers that. And don't you think diachronic analysis
would be able to find *some* connection between spin and spun? Shouldn't
it even try?

> > We do not know IE all that well. [...]
>
> Yes, the 'in our ignorance' speech :) I was waiting for that.

Message slowly getting across? :-)

> > 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.
>
> Well then!

Well then I just can't know if the next derivatives that may be
discovered from the same roots will corroborate this by also showing -o-,
or will overturn it by showing -e-. Both is equally possible.

>
> > Would you mention an example? I really do not know exactly what you
> > have in mind.
>
> From what I understood, you were trying to get *e out of verb roots
> which appear to be *o-grade and the perfect reduplication had something
> to do with it as with Hittite /sakki/?
>
>
> >> 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?
>
> No, no. I mean, it could be that many vocalisms were once much more
> common than they appear to be later in IE.
>
>
> > That's not a fair statement. You cry for the consideration of
> > further possibilities. So when I give you possibilities, that is
> > wrong.
>
> No, I cry to eliminate existing possibilities through reasoning. I
> for one don't like lingering possibilities because that equates to
> unknowns and there's no reason why we can't distill the existing
> facts to arrive at an appropriate solution. Unknowns defeat the purpose
> in the pursuit of knowledge, don't they?

It can get much worse if you overlook the unknowns or underestimate their
importance. Much progress has been made only when someone had the honesty
to envisage possibilities that had been ignored.

>
> > So you define an o-root. What is that, and where do we find one?
>
> You mentioned examples like *gHos- and *louh- yourself and we can
> always cite more familiar roots that defy splicing like *pod-, *kwon-
> and *nepot-. However, I object to calling them some special name
> like 'o-roots' since they are not any bit different or stranger from
> their 'e-counterparts'. I don't know why you want to pick on them.

You're the one who's doing that.

> > 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 identity 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?
>
> We don't, I suppose. But then, we don't know whether there are
> elves in your teacup either.

I never made a statement about that. With good reason.

> We don't side with the theory that
> requires more effort. It's easier to take the simplest approach: that
> the *o is supposed to be where we find it, even if it doesn't suit
> our whims. Sure, many forms with *o come from perfects and statives
> but this still musn't always be the case. We have to avoid
> overgeneralizations if they aren't warranted. You still don't show
> how they are. You're insisting again.

No, far from it. I can't make up my mind for want of relevant information.
And I believe it would be wrong to do so. If we don't know we have to keep
the options open.

> > It is a stem. That is what you see, and that is what should be
> > accepted.
>
> No. We simply see *kwon-. It is _presumed_ that it is **pku-on-
> but nothing compelling in way of evidence.

No, I wasn't thinking of Hamp's sheepdog. It's simply that if Greek
khthó:n is not a root noun, why must kúo:n be? It seems like a fortuitous
difference of knowledge. We incidentally know the background of khthó:n,
but we don't know anything of relevance about 'hound'. Or would you call a
potential *k^ewon- a *root* too? Are there disyllabic root nouns from
disyllabic roots? I think this only amounts to a new terminology.

> > *pod- is not the invariable full grade form of that root. There is
> > also *ped-.
>
> Ah, so you're doing it that way, hunh? So be it. I'll accept that.
>
>
> >> It will always be a root until somebody finds **nep-. The end.
> >
> > It's a stem.
>
> Well I don't see **nep- so I don't know how you can possibly call
> it a stem if there's no way to splice it in the manner that you
> suggest. People often will splice words in a ridiculous fashion.
> I remember Larry Trask splicing Basque /zazpi/ 'seven' into *zaz-
> and *-pi instead of accepting the obvious: the word is an old loan
> ultimately from an AfroAsiatic language. I really hate that
> splice-n-dice game.

By saying that *nepot- is a stem I am avoiding making unmotivated
statements. Our fundamental assumption must be that things are what they
are whether we know or not. A stem does not become a root just because we
do not know it is a collocation of root + suffix. But it's a stem in any
case.

>
> >> 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.
>
> Erh? So you accept roots in *-o- afterall?

I hold the possibility open. But it is an argument based on silence.
Dangerous stuff.

> > So you do not want the language to be analyzed?
>
> Only where valid.

But it is also an analysis to say that *nepot- is a root. It is an honest
confession of the limitation of one's knowledge to call it a stem.

>
> >> 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!
>
> You have to understand that the way I see it, the common use of *e
> in verb stems is the result of early IndoTyrrhenian vowel harmony. So
> the *e-vocalism we see is from the transitive conjugation while the
> *a-vocalism (later *o-vocalism) was used for intransitives. Since
> the durative sprang from the transitive and the aorist-perfect
> came from the intransitive, we ended up with what we see. We have
> *e largely in the durative with a few oddities in *o, root aorists
> in *o, and finally perfects with reduplication also showing *o as its
> core vocalism.

I do not know of a principle of IE vocalism being distributed according to
transitivity. Are you talking about the -o- of the causative? That is
demonstrably an old consonantal infix. What "root aorists in *o" are you
talking about? I don't know any.

>
> To be clear on where I stand so far, I'd say that the *o-vocalism
> seen in some duratives is simply the result of aorists or perfects
> migrating to the durative. That's all. This could have happened at
> any point between Late IndoTyrrhenian and Late IE.

I see no reason to assume such a thing, nor would I call it simple. What
o-vocalism duratives are you talking about?

> So, in my mind, there is nothing terribly odd about the distribution
> of *e versus *o in verbs, being that the durative is the default
> aspect anyways, and even so, there were still always verbs with
> other vocalisms in the durative throughout the development of IE
> from IndoTyrrhenian times.

What's the basis of the statement that differentiated vocalisms only occur
in present stems ("duratives")?

> Does anything in my account sound linguistically odd. If so, what
> and why?

Not typologically, if that is what you mean. But there is no valid
foundation for any of it.

> > It *is* regular.
>
> Yes, but there's no particular reason why the accent should oscillate
> between the singular and plural. Therefore the accent is _unintuitive_.
> In other words, the accent placement has to be _learned_ and is not
> automatic.

Many languages are that way. Now you *are* served a natural language and,
of course, now *that* is wrong.

> There must be regularity underlying this unautomatic system.

Quite probably, but finding it will be the *next* step.

> This is inevitable common sense. So I'm afraid the accent alternation
> in *esti/*?senti most certainly should be explained first before
> dabbling in the always-nebulous vowel system.

That *has* been explained, in fact by the *same* rule: The accent moves
from where it was to the next syllable if the stem is elaborated by a
syllabic morpheme. So, when *-ent was added to *H1es-, the accent moved
from the root to the desinence, this reducing the root to zero-grade.
There is no such movement onto nom.pl. *-es, so the rule forbids that
morpheme to have a vowel. That's why I derive it from a structure
without one.

> Vowels are too, shall we
> say, liquid to ascertain their exact origins without help from other
> facts.

In the days of Voltaire, yes.

>
> > IE languages are very close to actually showing that.
>
> Yes, I know. But there's a difference between "precisely" and "close
> but no cigar". If one can only find "very close" examples, it shows
> all the more that reducing a system to monovocalism is more futile
> than trying to solve the New York Times Crossword in the allotted
> time. (Does anyone else have trouble with that damned puzzle?)

Does "very close" not count as an observation at all? Is it without
relevance for the description and analysis of IE that its vocalism is
the same in almost all roots? Do you now formulate regular inflections for
languages just because there is a single exception? "No English plural -s,
cf. sheep" - is that better? How many bull's eye shots do you demand to
cough up one of them damn cigars?

> At least you keep me on my toes and make me think :)

Likewise, I'm sure.

Jens