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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:

> Jens to Rob:
> > 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.
>
> This is just from someone who can't listen. It's already been

spelled

> out countless times.

So we have. I have listened far too much.

[JER:]

> > No, how could it be? It's the prestage which changed into *H2ék^-

mon-z

>
> Look, its easy to work this back but you gotta keep level about

this:

>
> *xakmon-
> < *xakmans (Vowel Shift)
> < *xakm&.ns (Schwa Merger)
> < *xakm&ns (Schwa Diffusion)
>
> That may be as far as we can go. Before that, there is

Thematicization

> which had formed the animate suffix *-m&n- from inanimate *-mn, so
> as a word, it may not have been coined yet. This brings us as far
> as about mid Late IE. You're using a recent word to derive ancient
> rules. That's senseless. Again, the chronology is all wrong which
> is why you're all running into problems and false conclusions.

It can hardly be styled a problem or a false conclusion that the
analysis produces the attested result. The preforms you specify
yourself do not differ in any interesting way from my account. Both
explanations say that a vowel which would have become /e/ if it had
been accented changed into some other vowel which is later found
with o-timbre. For reasons not interesting to me anymore you choose
to speak of schwa and vowel shift, while I call them e and o, but
the message remains the same.

Jens