From: Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
Message: 33189
Date: 2004-06-09
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Rob wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen <jer@...>
> wrote:
>
> > My logic would tend to say the opposite. The inherited plural
> formations
> > of German, Danish or Welsh are totally unpredictable now. Each word
> must
> > be learnt by itself.
>
> What I meant was that plurality as it exists in IE languages today
> did not exist as such in PIE when it first became established as an
> independent language.
I understood that, but I think it is wrong for the reason I gave: If the
plural category were an innovation it would not be marked in such an
unsystematic way that makes it so hard to analyze. It is a solution often
seen advocated by amateur scholars who use it to disqualify conflicting
evidence they don't like. My analysis avoids that.
> > In vo:x, IE *wó:kW-s, I believe the root vowel was long already in
> > the underlying form. This is one of the canonical root-noun types
> > with a specifically iterative shade in tis semantics. I credit the
> > length to the meaning; it's iconic lengthening, already in the
> > input.
>
> Iconic lengthening? Explain.
If the thing spoken about is something that takes time, it can be referred
to be an expression that takes time. Perhaps it's rather reduplication
used to indicate an iterative semantic element. There is reason to believe
that underlying length has sometimes developed from an reduplicated
structure. There are no reduplicated verbs with Dehnstufe, so perhaps it
is something like Germanic e:2 (but then by rules we do not know).
[...]
> Perhaps at first the 2sg form was *-t, 3sg *-0. Then /-t/ > /-s/,
> giving 2sg *-s vs. 3sg *-0. Finally, 3sg *-t came from *-to, from
> demonstrative *to- (or perhaps when it was still *ta- or something
> similar) with apocope of the vowel.
The presence of a vowel in the 3sg ought to have influenced the accent,
which is not the case. And the process whereby "3sg *-t came from *-to"
needs spelling out. The frequently-quoted form "*-to" itself ought to be
motivated which it is not. This simply evades inspection and is therefore
not superior in any meaningful way.
>
> > > The form *(x)ákmons seems to be possible only after the earlier
> > > penultimate stress rule (as Glen and I hypothesize) disappeared.
> >
> > Yes, that rule was designed to predict the *lexical* accent of
> stems,
> > wasn't it? That would fit, for this is younger than the lexical
> assignment
> > of the accent position.
>
> Right. This means that the root form had already been established as
> *xak before the suffix (presumably *-man) was added. However, why
> didn't the accent shift due to the syllabic suffix?
You tell me: You invoke a "penultimate stress rule" of which I guessed you
could see the regularity (I can't).
>
> > Sure, "*(x)ákmons" is more recent than "*(x)ákmens" of which it
> will be
> > the direct continuation.
>
> Is *(x)ákmens attested anywhere?
No, how could it be? It's the prestage which changed into *H2e'k^-mon-z (>
PIE *H2a'k^-mo:n). The form is motivated by the general observation that
suffixes always have /-e-/ when their vowel appears accented and not
disturbed by other factors.
>
> > I do not know. I see no complementary distribution in formal terms.
> But
> > it's a bit funny there are *no inanimate oxytones*. There are no
> neuters
> > with a stressed suffix *-és or *-mén. So perhaps it is an original
> > opposition of animacy?? In that case its reflexes are perhaps not
> in a
> > very clean distribution in PIE anymore.
>
> Hmm. It suggests to me that something drew the accent to the suffix
> in the animate forms. Beyond that, I cannot tell yet.
Oh, something? Well, why didn't I think of that? Sorry, it was too
tempting.
>
> I think diachronicity is important for reconstructing these
> soundlaws -- we need to pinpoint, to the best of our ability, when
> different sound changes began and ended.
That is asking a lot. But it *is* relevant: The rules of internal
reconstruction are mostly given as a relative chronology in linear order
(as I have spelled out the application of mine on many occasions). That,
however, would presuppose that they all happened in flashes. From actual
language change we know that some changes may take a longer time than
others to be carried out completely, and that some changes can overlap
with others, and some may even completely cover other more shortlived
changes. Such possibilities ideally ought to be kept in mind. That makes
the puzzle much harder.
Jens