From: elmeras2000
Message: 33282
Date: 2004-06-25
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:
[]
> If Sanskrit alone happens to show this artificial 'monovocalism',
it
> only goes to show that such a thing is exceedingly rare. [] So,
I'm afraid it is rarity
> itself that statistically excludes it as a reasonable option for
IE,
> particularly when there are other competing theories that exist
which
> don't rely on these insignificant probabilities.
It does not matter that such a system is rare, for it is not assumed
except for a single passing stage in the prehistory of the language.
It is not claimed that all stages of the language were typologically
uncommon on all points, on the contrary practically all we know
about it is quite commonplace. But it is totally unwarrranted to
demand that, in a long series of stages there is not one that is
typologically abnormal. After all this is nothing but statistics,
and statistic normality is not overthrown by the existence of a
single fleeting stage somewhere along the line that falls outside of
the normal frame. That would explain that in all the other stages we
see a near-violation of a presumed universal in the extreme paucity
of vowel variation in the IE *lexicon*.
> > There are a limited number of lexemes with other root vowels
(better,
> > perhaps, first-syllable vowels) than //e//. There *may* be
verbal
> > roots also with other vowels, but that could be remedied by
accepting
> > some non-optimal root structures.
>
> If we are talking about IE and if we understand that IE was a
_natural_
> and _human_ language, then there *must* be verbal roots also with
other
> vowels! There can be no choice, Jens! List how many languages in
the
> world have verb roots with only one vocalism??
Where would I get that information? How many have seven vowels?
Quite many, sure, but *how* many? Why would I know that?
> Aside from Semitic
> languages which while unusually regular in comparison to most
languages
> still no doubt contain exceptions to the rule, the vast majority
> of languages allow for multiple vocalisms beyond a shadow of a
doubt.
Semitic strikes me as quite appropriate here. If Semitic is allowed
to have vowel oppositions for morphological purposes only, why is
that a priori disallowed for IE? The examples you quote all have
morphologically conditioned vowels in IE, quite Semitic style. The
system is almost there in Germanic still: if you know the shape of a
root you can predict how a strong verbs inflects and what vowels it
uses in all of its forms. It only fails in classes VI and VII which
are themselves examples of vowel changes for morphological purposes,
only on a deeper level.
> While I agree that *e is indeed the common vocalism for at least
the
> IE durative, there is still the controversy of the *o-presents
that you
> haven't succesfully explained as far as I'm aware.
I have just published my account of that; it was *surprisingly* easy
to explain.
> There is the matter
> of the Narten presents as well, but you of course try to
rationalize
> that they derive from *e, if I understand.
Narten presents are made form the *same* roots that have underlying
short *e in other forms. It is a purely morphological matter.
> The verbs in *a have not
> been explained either. I remember asking the question about the
> root *mad- 'be drunk' and how one conjugates it exactly. There
weren't
> any clear responses.
That is descriptively correct, both of the matter and of the
discussion. There are a number of possibilities: 1. They could have
*a as you say and so exemplify a different original vowel from that
of most other roots. 2. They could be younger words not present at
the time of the presumed clash of an older multiple vocalism and so
not hit by it. 3. They could reflect changes that occurred after the
clash, involving material we cannot specify. There may be more
possibilities, but at least in the event of either 2 or 3 they would
not constitute counterevidence to the assumption of a merger of a
variety of lexical vowel into a single unit at some prestage of PIE.
Even with an unexplained residue, the distribition of vowel timbres
in IE is so uneven that it demands an explanation. You are simply
looking the other way and ordering me to do the same.
>
> So we have two choices. One is to deny all forms that don't
conform to
> a pure *e-vocalism for all verbs (as if IE were some cruel joke by
a
> prankster god, perhaps some kind of prehistoric Esperanto). This is
> obvious madness.
Far from it.
> The other option is to actually put one's tail between
> one's legs and accept both the data which by all accounts appears
to
> attest to many vocalisms in IE and the universal tendency of
languages
> to indeed allow multiple vocalisms in verb stems. The latter
option,
> rather than indulging in irrational suspicion of anything that
doesn't
> conform to one's theory, allows one's theory to conform to the
reality
> of the situation. The latter choice should be obvious at this point
> unless one has an ego to uphold.
You must be talking to a mirror.
> > The odd roots could be later additions and so not relevant for an
> > older stage for which a monovocalic system could then indeed be
the
> > solution for roots.
>
> Certainly, I can agree with that statement. For example, any verb
> roots with *a-vocalism would according to my theory have been
> created by way of Vowel Shift because some instances of *a had
> failed to become *o when neighbouring a labial phoneme. That would
> explain *mad- nicely as well as some nominal forms which appear to
> show a 'true' *a, one not formed by uvular effects.
There are no such rules. A root shape *med- is perfectly permissible
for IE, and so is its conditioned variant *mod-.
> However, this only confirms that verb roots in *a-grade had existed
> in the past alongside those with *e-grade, but as I said, this is
> to be expected from a natural, human language.
What is the meaning of "grade" here? You speak of the roots as
lexically different. Where does a gradation come in?
> > []
> []
> > That leads to the conclusion that some originally word-final
material
> > took on a pronunciation not seen elsewhere in the language and
retained
> > it even after enclitic elements had become the inflectional
endings as
> > which we know them.
>
> This conclusion is not valid. It's undesirable because you're
inventing
> elements that are unnecessary.
That can only be decided when the truth is known, which it is not.
What if unknown elements were there, were they then also unnecessary?
> The thematic vowel can be explained
> simply as from unaccented *a (pronounced [&]) which lengthens
before
> voiced segments and doesn't before voiceless ones. All is accounted
> for and we need nothing more than that.
> []
The original form of the thematic vowel was accented.
> > All this takes us far too far back in time to be of any real
value.
>
> This takes us too far back in time? Or too far back into the
recesses
> of madness. Given the current state of Nostratic, I'd say that
line is
> still a little blurry.
Yes, too far back.
>
> > We must keep the thematic vowel out of the puzzle concerning the
other
> > vowels since it goes by rules of its own.
>
> Not really. We're only dealing with unaccented *a as I said.
> We needn't
> invent a new vowel because we'd otherwise wonder what happened to
> unaccented *a... well there it is! The thematic vowel is
unaccented *a.
> This is why I've changed my notation because the typology of that
sound
> system at the early Late IE level otherwise doesn't make as much
sense
> with that odd gap together with such a common occurence of *&. Now
> everything is accounted for and works normally at every stage and
on
> every level from phonetics right on up to the morphology. We thus
see
> what we expect to in a natural language: More instances of *a than
the
> other vowel *e. It's genius really ;)
Not if it does not fit the facts, as it patently doesn't.
>
> Further, we don't really know whether half-lengthening as attested
in
> the thematic vowel occured also in accented environments or not,
and
> what we should expect as reflexes of that phenomenon if it did
exist
> there.
The thematic vowel behaves the same whether it was accented or not.
However, in very archaic remains, unaccented thematic vowels are
reduced to /i/, so the original locus of the thematic vowel is in
accented stem-final. How long it was we cannot say; the talk
of "half-lengthening" is just your erratic variation of my
observation of its alternation habits.
> Was mLIE *padm (*podm) pronounced ['pa.dm] perhaps while *patis
> (*potis) was pronounced ['pati.z]? These are questions to be
answered
> later as we learn more. For now, that can't be dismissed.
>
>
> > How can the assumption of splits be styled an explanation of an
only
> > apparent monovocalism? Surely it would be even more obvious if
there were
> > no splits. What is the idea of saying such nonsense?
>
> To have the plural *-es be properly etymologized and connected to
other
> Steppe languages, we need a contrast of at least *e and *a in all
stages
> of pre-IE.
No, an opposition between vowel and zero will do.
> > Were there other vowels in your "MIE" than "*e", and if so, which
> > ones? What PIE distinctions do they correspond to?
>
> MIE had at least two vowels, *e and *a. The two vowels coexisted in
> all positions except finally where only *-a was allowed. As a
result,
> *-a normally disappeared by Syncope except when affected by the
> Resistance rules (Paradigmatic Resistance and Suffix Resistance).
> We've also seen how phonotactics could resist Syncope if the
resultant
> form was too awkward, just like in many other living languages, to
> avoid instances of triconsonantal clusters in final position.
>
> The disappearance of *-a in final position can be predicted
accurately
> thanks to the Resistance rules which negate the need for *-e in
final
> position in MIE for the sake of efficiency. However the contrast,
as I
> say, is necessary in both accented and unaccented position within
the
> word. Without the contrast, the origin of the plural within Steppe
> becomes senseless and forces us to make up ad hoc rules as to why
*e
> doesn't act like a thematic vowel... which happens to be your
strategy.
>
> Since *e in *-es can be derived from unaccented *e and the
thematic vowel
> can be derived from unaccented *a (thereby showing the normal
abundance
> of unaccented phonemic *a), I fail to see how anything can be more
> satisfactory as an explanation. The threads are woven too tightly
to be
> unravelled at this point.
>
>
> > What is counter-optimal about a vowel system opposing [i] and
[u] to a
> > third, non-high vowel?
>
> Nothing. It's wonderful and brings a tear to my eye. But now you're
> speaking of Proto-Steppe, not IE.
Indeed, it is a prestage of PIE. It is beyond the method to tell us
how much older that prestage is, so you may call it what you like.
Jens