On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 06:09:01 +0000, Rob
<
magwich78@...> wrote:
>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> The plural/dual marker -n (the additional vowel -a or -i is
>> automatic after a long vowel) is added *after* the case
>> markings -u:, -i: (-a:, -ay).
>>
>> This is consistent with a pronominal origin (former definite
>> article) of the -n marker.
>
>Why wasn't it added also to singular definite nouns?
Beacuse *(V)n was the _plural_. The singular definite
article must have been *V, which merged with the singular
case endings [alternatively: which *is* the singular case
endings].
>> Other examples are *po:ds "foot", *-wo:ts (ptc.pf.act.),
>> *méh1no:ts "month", etc.
>
>Hmm. Concerning Greek pous 'foot,' the orthography indicates that
>this was a secondarily lengthened /o/ (that is, after original */o:/
>became /O:/). So perhaps the Greek form was earlier pods or pots?
poús is the Attic form, elsewhere we have pó:s. I'm not
sure, but it looks like *po:ds could be simplified early to
*po:s, which then stays, or (in Attic) remained as *po:ds,
which is then affected by Osthoff's law (-V:CC > -VCC, so
*po:ds > *pods, and then *pods > po:2s [written <pous>] with
compensatory lengthening).
>> In normal i-stems the vowel isn't lengthened (the
>> lengthening only affects sequences -VC(C)-s).
>> Diphthong-stems (-oy-s > -o:y) drop the -s (Skt. sakha:,
>> Grk. Sappho:, Hitt. hastai).
>
>Do you agree with Jens as to the process behind lengthening in *-VC
>(C)-s sequences?
Yes and no. I certainly agree that the nominative ending
*-s (from **-z) (as well as the collective ending *-h2)
causes lengthening of a preceding vowel, provided another
consonant intervenes. I also agree that this law worked
_before_ zero grade.
I do not agree that the nominative *-s is responsible for
the o-grade of the nominative, accusative sg. and the
nominative pl. in the proterodynamic forms. That
phenomoneon is earlier than "nominative lengthening", and
worked at a time when the lengthened grade of /e/ was /o/
(in other words, when these two phonemes were still */a/ and
*/a:/).
If we take a proterodynamic word such as *h2ák^-mon-, we see
that o-grade is consistently present in the syllable right
after the accent:
nom. *h2ák^-mon-z > *h2ák^-mo:n
acc. *h2ák^-mon-m
gen. *h2k^-mén-os
pl.
nom. *h2ák^-mon-es
gen. *h2k^-mén-om
This comes from pre-PIE:
nom. *xák-man-z
acc. *xák-man-m
gen. *xak-mán-as
pl.
nom. *xák-man + ás(W)
gen. *xak-mán-am,
with lengthening of the posttonic (svarita) syllable:
nom. *xák-ma:n-z
acc. *xák-ma:n-m
gen. *xak-mán-a:s
pl.
nom. *xák-ma:n + ás(W)
gen. *xak-mán-a:m.
The lengthening did *not* occur in the following cases:
1) if the stressed syllable was long (contained a long
vowel) or heavy (ended in -CC, -CCC etc.). For some reason,
all neuters have a heavy root syllable, e.g.:
*wá:d-an > *wódr "water" does not become +wá:d-a:n (>
+wód-or).
2) if the svarita syllable was open, e.g. in the dat/loc:
*xak-mán-a + i (> *&2k^méni) does not become +xak-mán-a: + i
(> +&2k^méno(i)). Perhaps lengthening was only dialectal
here, which might explain the Hittite allative in -a (< -o).
In the end-stressed (root-noun and hysterodynamic)
paradigms, svarita-lenthening obviously does never occur:
N **paxtár-z > **p&xtérz > *p&2té:r
A **paxtár-m > **p&xtérm > *p&térm.
G **paxtar-ás > **p&xt&rés > *p&2trés
D **paxtar-á > **p&xt&ré > *p&2tré(i)
A special case are animate nouns with a heavy/long root
syllable, e.g. **pá:d- (root noun) or **pú:nt-ax-. They
were initially regular, but the (regular) phonetic
developments caused the emergence of special paradigms:
nom. **pá:d-z > **pód-z > *pó:ds
acc. **pá:d-m > **pód-m > *pódm.
gen. **pa:d-ás > **pad-és > *péds
dat. **pa:d-á > **pad-é > *péd(i)
This is the stative paradigm. Unstressed *a: is reduced to
*a, which then attracts the accent (becoming *é).
nom. **pú:nt-ax-z > *pónt-&x-z > *pónto:h2s
acc. **pú:nt-ax-m > *pónt-&x-m > *pónth2m.
gen. **pu:nt-áx-a:s > *p&nt-&x-ós > *pn.th2ós
loc. **pu:nt-áx-a > *p&nt-éx-& > *pn.táh2(i)
This is an amphidynamic paradigm. The stress shifted from
the suffix syllable -&x- (not lengthened in the nominative
and accusative either) to the lengthened desinence syllable
-os. Nominative lengthening subsequently *did* lengthen the
schwa in the nominative singular (*pónt-&x-z > *pónt-&:x-z),
and this *&: eventually gave /o:/. But the accusative
singular was not lengthened.
Another amphidynamic paradigm (with short vowel, but -CC
root):
NA **kárx-san > **kérx-s&r > *k^ér&2sr.
G **karx-sán-a:s > **k&rx-s&n-ós > *k^r.h2snós
DL **karx-sán-a > **k&rx-sén-& > *k^r.h2sén(i)
>> Yes. But "name" is a neuter.
>
>All right. So now we have a 3-way distinction:
>
>Animate stressed: *-mén-s
>Animate unstressed: *-mon-s
>Inanimate (presumably always unstressed): *-mn
>
>Is it safe to assume that in the animate unstressed type, the o-
>vocalism of the suffix was preserved due to the presence of *-s?
No, because it's also preserved in the accusative and in the
nominative plural, where no *-s was ever present.
Clever as Jens' solution for the nominative plural is, the
nominative plural is *not* based on the nominative singular,
but on the endingless vocative singular. This is seen most
clearly in the i- and u-stems, where the vocative form
happens to differ substantially from the nominative and
accusative: nom. *-is, acc. *-im, voc. *-ei (c.q. nom. *-us,
acc. *-um, voc. *-eu/*-ou). The nom.pl. forms are *-ei-es
(*-eu-es/*ou-es), not whatever Jens' **-is-c, **-us-c would
have given.
The construction endingless-singular + plural definite
article (*h2ák^mon-ésW, *p&2tér-ésW, *pód-ésW, etc.) had
replaced the original plural form, which I believe was
*-abh[u] (obl. *-abh[i]). The oblique plural still exists
(as the gen.pl. *xak-mán-a:bh^ > *&2k^-mén-om) and as the
base of the other oblique forms (*xak-man-abhi-' >
*&2k^mn.bhió-s/ *&2k^mn.mó-s, *&2k^mn.bhí-s/*-mí-s,
**h2k^mn.(p)-s-ú), all extended with the plural article
*-(e)sW. The acc.pl. has two forms: *&2k^-mén-m-s /
*&2ák^-mon-m-s. The first one has the stress pattern of the
old pl. oblique (= gen.pl.), the other has taken over the
stress pattern of the acc. singular. Both have also added
*-s(W), the plural article. It is likely that at an earlier
stage, the accusative and genitive plural were not
distinguished (both *xak-mán-a:m).
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...