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

From: elmeras2000
Message: 33212
Date: 2004-06-11

--- 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