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

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

> Jens:
> > From the protoform thus tentatively posited as *H2nér-z-c we expect
> > the following developments by the rules already accepted:
> >
> > 1. Lengthening caused by the nominative sibilant: [...]
> > 2. Shortening before -CC-s [...]
> > 3. Reduction of sibilant clusters to /s/ would give *H2nérs. Now,
> > that is not the form to be explained, *H2néres is. So we need an
> > added rule:
>
> Now this is just painful! Honestly. The solution is hitting you right
> on the head. The nominative plural was never lengthened to begin with
> because its suffix was not affected by Syncope and subsequent
> compensatory lengthening (Szemerenyi) like *-sa was. Since *-sa was
> shortened to *-s, we see the length in the singular while *-es
> remains as is and hence... no lengthening. Very very very simple.
>
> Where you err is that you assume that the nominative plural was
> a combination of *-s + *-(e)s, I see. This is why I couldn't follow
> what you were saying above. It was too absurd to comtemplate for me.

Yes, it's too sophisticated to assume that the nominative plural is
structured with a nominative marker and a plural marker, eh? I don't think
it matters much that it is not condoned by everybody.

The reason "Syncope and subsequent compensatory lengthening" failed to hit
the form could be that there are no such rules. No problem is caused by
that.

> Someday you'll understand that the nominative was originally unmarked
> and that the plural was applied long before the nominative in *-s was
> ever established.

This must be one of your initial conclusions.

> If anything we should expect the long-established
> *-es being given the late suffix *-s instead!

Expectations have no part in an empirical science.

> At least that idea would
> be even remotely more sensible than what you offer above. Still the
> simplest approach is to accept that *-sa was only applied to the
> singular as a contrast with an animate plural already in *-es.

The language material is what matters. Its testimony should be respected.

> > The rule by which it is regular is ad hoc, however, but that cannot
> > be helped I'm afraid.
>
> It could be, with just a few teaspoons of common sense. Shame :P

So it's not ad hoc? Fine.

Jens