From: Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
Message: 33305
Date: 2004-06-28
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 enlil@... wrote:
> [Jens:]
> > [] I am not using the one-vowel analysis for anything at all. I
> > only responded to a long series of lecturings about its self-evident
> > wrongness, statements that fly in the face of observations anyone
> > can make. Whether it is right or wrong is of no consequence for any
> > of the analyses concerning the growth of IE ablaut and morphological
> > peculiarities that I have presented.
>
> It's wrong not only because it's rare. It's wrong because it doesn't
> really address the features of IE in a straightforward way and has
> led you to other rarities that only add to the unlikeliness of your
> account.
But I haven't based anything on the assumption of a single vowel for (an
undefined prestage of) PIE. If what else I say is wrong that must have
other reasons.
> > Well, if they *did* that, that is what we should find out about
> > them. Are we not after the truth? Now, it was not that way, and I'm
> > not saying that. The thematic vowel was created under the accent.
>
> Well, yes, I agree... in that the thematic vowel is _unstressed_ *a.
> It became reduced to [&] from MIE *e indeed because of the accent, yes.
Well, the truth just is the oppposite of that. I do not know what may have
led you to make this peculiar choice, but it is quite plain that the
thematic vowel which may even be the *only* vowel of a word was originally
accented. Further down you're gloating about my acceptance of accent on
the vowel marking the subjunctive (although that is not the best of the
examples, far from it); now that is the thematic vowel. For some reason
you do not accept the stem-elaborating vowel of the subjunctive of
reduplicated formations as a representative of the thematic vowel; perhaps
because it means something and *is* underlyingly accented?
> > The quest for the truth does not go by what you already know. It
> > should be pursued with an open mind.
>
> I'm sure you mean something else for we most certainly must begin with
> what we know to arrive at further answers. Otherwise, we're grappling
> in the dark unnecessarily.
By you I meant you, sir. I cannot be content with departing from what you
know.
> > That's not what I read about some of the Semitic languages. But if
> > it's correct and vowel oppositions are really *lexical* and not
> > merely morphologically conditioned as I can read, the prestage of IE
> > we're talking about is not quite like Semitic.
>
> I don't understand why you'd insist otherwise. Semitic and IE are
> seperate language groups anyways and you're assuming that they must be
> the same?
No, you are twisting everything around. You always do that. It is very
annoying and hard to disregard in the long run.
> I don't get where you're going with this. Nonetheless,
> everything I've said so far still stands and you haven't raised any
> noteworthy points. I guess you're saying that since Proto-Semitic,
> say, shows *CaCa:C- in one form and *CaCiC- in another, therefore
> Semitic doesn't have varied vocalism and, yes, as it's currently
> formulated, the language appears to have no irregularities... that's
> why it's suspect. Even Akkadian had irregularities like /illik/ so
> yet again, the "varied vocalism" stance wins the debate.
I was not referring to anything in Akkadian. But do you have to scrape for
a specific Akkadian word to exemplify a varied vocalism? That is
remarkable in itself.
Grande says flat out that vowels exclusively serve morphological purposes
in Semitic. However, Diakonoff says it is only true in its extreme wording
for Arabic and the southers dialects of Semitic. But that is human
language also, I would guess. So a language can be that way.
I do not have too much literature on Semitic at hand, but I read in
B.M.Grande, Vvedenie v sravnitel'noe izuc^enie semitskix jazykov (Moskva
1972): "Thus vowels fulfil the function of grammatical elements in the
words, their role in a word being auxiliary. The character and consistency
of vowel sounds in the word are one [sic] of the basic morphological means
in the Semitic languages" (103).
I.M.Diakonoff, Afrasian Languages (Moscow 1988) writes: "2.3.1. One
characteristic feature of Semitic languages is usually pointed out in
works on Semitic linguistics, viz., that the root in these languages
comprises only consonants." And later: "2.3.2. The general formula given
under 2.3.1. and characterizing the Semitic root is actually completely
valid only for Arabic and the Southern Peripheral Semitic languages. It is
valid there for all verbal as well as for all nominal roots, ..." (64).
I have no serious insight by which I could evaluate the correctness of
these statements independently. Are they *very* wrong?
Against what illusory rule is Akkadian illik a counterexample?
> > You do not know every stage.
>
> Neither do you. It's our goal in common, no?
You are changing the subject again. I never claimed I did, you did.
> > No, I am not understanding your position. I refuse to consider
> > Etruscan evidence here, it's putting the cart before the horse.
>
> None of this really depends on Tyrrhenian, anyway, so it's of no
> concern whether you reject it. However, it's unfortunate because you're
> losing out on some details.
>
> > I can explain most of the IE vowel alternations by rules working after
> > the rise of zero-grade.
>
> In my account, there are ablaut patterns occurring both before and after
> Syncope. That is more balanced than saying that everything is recent.
>
No, it is a bad sign if you have to deny that you are far better informed
about changes that occurred after the rise of zero-grade than before it.
If you are forced to deny the obvious you are on a wrong track.
> > The weakening of unaccented /e/ to /o/ [...]
>
> Again, no language I know of "weakens" /e/ to /o/.
Yacketi-yak: It's a commonly used short way of saying the unaccented form
of what would otherwise have ended up as IE /e/ is weakened to what in the
end surfaces as IE /o/. I thereby avoid specifying things I do not know.
Is it not good method to stick honestly to what you have a knowledge
about? I have pointed out that this is the style I use on countless
occasions already.
I can't be bothered
> with this proto-Klingon of yours. Normally a vowel will lower or
> deperipheralize to schwa when unstressed, not _add_ new features like
> rounding!
You may read it phonetically as you like. Only, the two have to be
different, and one is derived from the other by a split caused by the
accent. The accented variant is later found as /e/, the unaccented
variant as /o/ or zero.
> This statement in itself is absurd, not to mention the
> rest of your ideas related to the change of thematic vowel through
> magic tonal qualities that again round *o for no rational reason. As
> I said, some of your analyses and bases make sense in themselves but
> what you do with them afterwards is frightening.
You say the nicest things. You may also read this phonetically as you
like. The two variants only have to be different, one of them *later*
surfacing as /e/, the other as /o/, the former being found before
originally voiced segments, the latter before voiceless segments or zero.
> > What is the charm about maximum similarity between "durative"
> > and "perfect"?
>
> That's the goal. To take unintuitive structures in a language and
> figure out what simpler origins they come from.
What intuition, if that is what it is, is in a position to inform you that
the present aspect and the perfect stem should be parallel? Why is the
present aspect patently parallel with the aorist in the selection of
personal endings and so unparallel with the perfect? Let's hear your
intuition speak.
> Even the universe
> as it now stands arose from minute fluctuations in an otherwise
> monotonously uniform sea of particles. If you disagree, write a
> letter to your local quantum physicist.
I forgot to think of that.
> > Because of the unknown time frame you could be right,
> > but it does not seem knowable. I deem it very unwise to design names
> > for these stages, for we will need hundreds of names,
>
> Do I use "hundreds of names"? No. An exaggeration.
But you should. There should be a new name each time there has been a
change. So this is poor design.
> I use three simple
> names: Old IE, Mid IE and Late IE which I had originally thought were
> about a thousand years each. Granted I split it further into eLIE
> and lMIE perhaps but only to show that if Syncope marks the beginning
> of the Late Period then what I'm saying occurred just after or before
> such a time. However, it's turning out that Old IE is probably more like
> five hundred years and that IndoTyrrhenian may have fully split up more
> around 6000 BCE than 7000 BCE. The timeframes of the nomenclature I
> use may change but are really dependent on major _language-based_ events
> such as Syncope for MIE=>LIE and QAR for OIE=>MIE.
>
>
> > and they will be changing all the time as we work on the finer tuning.
>
> That's a given that is already understood without further elaboration.
But we can't have each opponent calling each generation's language by
names that are not shared by the group of discussants. This is destructive
to the debate. I wouldn't know what I would call the individual stages of
your suggested preforms which I consider completely misguided, but
certainly not what you call them.
> > Therefore I have simply presented my phonetic rules in linear order
> > without prejudice about their age in absolute values.
>
> I have no prejudice either here. The timeframes are estimations at
> best and may change in the future when I learn more. We don't differ
> here really.
>
>
> > The form *woid-xe is not normative for IE morphology at all. Rules
> > based on it cannot be very good.
>
> Do you mean here that *woid-, being unreduplicated, is not "normative"
> compared to other perfects?
Yes.
> Is that it?
Yes.
> It really doesn't matter in
> my analysis one way or another but the evidence shows that the verb
> stem really isn't reduplicated.
No, it does matter, for the full picture of its forms shows very
definitely that it has been reduplicated. That is not known by many, but
it has been demonstrated for anyone who cares. And if it hadn't, the item
would still be a morphological loner and hence of very dubious value as a
point of departure for an analysis of the entire prehistory of IE
morphology.
> > The infix is not of phonotactic origin. Like most other things it is
> > sensitive to phonotactic factors in its further development, but
> > that is a completely different matter.
>
> Here we go again. It's "not of phonotactic origin", but what is the
> _evidence_ in one short paragraph? These are still idle assertions.
There is much more solid evidence showing exactly what you refuse to even
observe than could possibly be contained in one short paragraph. It's a
big world out here.
> > There is no constraint excluding a sequence of three consonants across
> > a stem + flexive boundary.
>
> We've gone over this. When this does occur, it can be shown that it
> is not an ancient state of affairs. A word like *bHe:rst is quite a
> heavy syllable indeed but it's already been shown that *-t is an eLIE
> demonstrative ending related to *to- and that the *s-aorist verb stem
> *bHe:rs- is an MIE innovation, being nothing but a denominal *s-stem
> in the end which had lengthened the root vowel because of the irregular
> 'clipping' of the monosyllabic *-es morpheme during Syncope. When you
> look deeper, the phonotactics are different in eLIE than they are in
> PIE itself. That's just common sense anyways.
There is no rule complying with this brand of common sense as you call it.
Whoever issues such a statement must have knowledge of a different
treatment of IE clustering across the boundary between root and flexive in
primary word-formations in dependency of the number of consonants that are
brought together. Now, there are no alternations that have occasioned the
positing of any such rules. Whether a root ends in one, two or even three
consonants, it is treated the same; and it does not matter whether it is
joined together with one or two consonants on the other side. What
phonotactically governed alternations are you talking about?
Look at the inflections of athematic presents or aorists. There are no
subclasses in their inflections caused by the complexity of the root
structure. You are inventing things, and solely for a destructive purpose
at that.
> > It is completely contrary to the rest of IE morphology to have a
> > thematic vowel follow a desinence. It is also contrary to IE
> > phonology to have a thematic vowel leave the placing of the accent
> > unaffected.
>
> Since you're expecting all the rules of IE to apply to Pre-IE, I
> evidently can't reason with you.
You could justify what you have apparently so arbitrarily chosen to tell
us all. It's about time.
> > The irregular forms of the root *weyd- can be derived from normal
> > *we-wóyd-/*wé- wid- by dissimilation (haplology) giving *wóyd-/*wéyd-.
>
> A lie. This "dissimilation" is completely ad hoc and isn't based on
> any regular rule I know of.
Right, it's a case story. Therefore it is not very wise to depart from
that example. We need a broader basis.
> > If retention of the vowel in the 1sg of the perfect in *-H2e is
> > regular, why is the vowel lost in the middle voice which has accented
> > *-H2é vs. unaccented *-&2?
>
> I've already mentioned that the middle as a special conjugation doesn't
> go farther back than eLIE. The middle endings are adapted from perfect
> endings and there are various forms in different dialects.
>
>
> > Why is the paradigm of *weid- which "has no problems" not followed by
> > other examples?
>
> What are you talking about? It's the _general_ pattern that works in all
> the cases I can think of.
That was my horrible impression of the general pattern of all cases you
can think of: Their analysis is based on an unsupported idea about
something quite uniqe.
>
>
> > But these are differences you put in without motivation,
>
> The motivation is QAR and phonotactics.
Your terminology is not everybody's. Not that I care much, but for
heaven's sake, let me be patient, so what is QAR?
> > And how do you account for the existence of a perfect subjunctive?
>
> It's an innovation. The subjunctive was originally unmarked for aspect.
The subjunctive of the perfect of *weid- turns up with irregular but
identical forms in Indic, Greek and Celtic. That cannot be an innovation.
> >>> Narten presents are made form the *same* roots that have
> >>> underlying short *e in other forms. It is a purely morphological
> >>> matter.
> >>
> >> A morphological matter based on what exactly?
> >
> > Strange question, how could anyone know?
>
> If you can't respond to an issue you bring up, don't bring it up then.
> My take on Nartens are that they are denominals. I know that IE
> later used *-ye- or *-ske- for that purpose but I don't think that
> explicit marking was originally the case and bare nouns could be used
> as verbs. Nartens would be one evidence of this. S-aorists another
> which are lengthened in the first place because of the Szemerenyi
> effect of 'clipping' as with other select morphemes I've already
> mentioned.
>
>
> > You apparently won't accept that the lopsidedness has a causation to
> > it at all.
>
> How can I? The "lopsidedness" is merely a tendency but not absolute
> or even close. My theory explains it, as I've said, since the cummulative
> sound changes I propose will cause such an effect without the need
> for monovocalism which hasn't been adequately proven by you anyway. At
> best, you've shown similarity with Sanskrit but there are still
> unexplained differences such as the verbs with *a-vocalism that you
> don't have an explanation for. You say I dismiss them. I am simply
> forced to by your lack of adequate evidence.
>
>
> > Well, then that item may be out. Are you insensitive to the very
> > thought that you could be right and your explanations could do away
> > with the entire recalcitrant material?
>
> I simply showed the possibility in this particular case. It doesn't
> explain every stem
That modesty did not stop you before.
> and there does seem to be a pattern of *a for
> *o neighbouring labialized consonants.
Then that would reduce the number of individual a's.
> > It is not natural anyways that very few roots have *a, if all others
> > have it otherways.
>
> You're speaking of "accented *a" really in the latest stage of IE though
> which makes it kind of crazy. If you look at it through my eyes, you'll
> see that the thematic vowel is original unaccented *a and that accented
> *o was accented *a, so there are a whole slew of *a's both accented
> and unaccented that once existed. We then have here a very natural
> language replete with *a. If a recent Vowel Shift obliterates this
> pattern by changing *a to *o in most positions, if *a was even originally
> the vowel of choice in non-durative stems, and if original *a comes
> to be more common in unaccented position because of lengthening before
> voiced segments, naturally it will look "lopsided" as we find it. This
> is not evidence and can be explained with resorting to anti-universal
> theories.
You are tampering with the evidence. It's up to the evidence to show you
something, not up to you to tell the evidence how to look.
> > The alleged *o-verbs do not have a special *lexical* vocalism.
>
> ... Except for those attested in Anatolian which you deny.
So you ascribe the vocalism of the hi-conjugation to the lexical vocalism
of the specific roots concerned? Could you explain and justify that? Is it
credible that roots with a specific vocalism formed their finite forms
with *inflections* of their own? Why are you assuming such a funny thing?
Is this lexical or morphological now?
> > And why on earth is it called an aorist?
>
> I won't insist on it because I'm basing that idea on extrapolation.
> The durative vocalism is clearly *-e-, but we find *-o- in the
> perfect. If the aorist originally used the same endings as the
> durative, could have had a perfect vocalism? I think so.
The normal vocalism observed in the root aorist is *e. This even comprises
the aorist stems found in Hittite.
> This makes
> sense grammatically since the aorist is a kind of intermediate
> between the other two aspects and would be parallel to the development
> of the feminine later on which also appears to be treated as an
> intermediate between animate (becoming masculine) and inanimate
> (becoming neuter).
Perhaps the speakers had not figured that out. I don't see the connection
either.
> In the case of the durative-aorist-perfect system
> which must have developped in IndoTyrrhenian already, the ancestor
> of it would be a subjective-objective system (with the perfect
> continuing the subjective).
Must it now? Incidentally, I am not hostile to the active/stative
suggestion, but that's another matter.
> > Well, if you now choose to use the term thematic only about vowels
> > nobody else would call by that name, you could end up being right
> > (and incomprehensible). But yes, the suffix of the subjunctive was
> > originally accented in my view as well.
>
> One more notch. One day, we might be completely in agreement and
> that's when the meteor will come <:)
>
>
> > But if the different vowels are restricted to different positions,
> > they do not contrast.
>
> But they aren't restricted to different positions. Even in IE itself,
> *e and *o are free to occur in both accented and unaccented position,
> and in any syllable. The restriction is imaginary in the end. The
> predominance of *e in the default form of the verb stem doesn't
> translate into a phonological restriction. There isn't even a
> restriction existent in the ablaut. We have accented *e alternating
> with unaccented *o and even vice versa! What restriction? Seems like
> another simulacrum on your part.
Then what *rule* is it you believe you have found? At the end of the day
none? I have a feeling you don't mean that.
> > However, that is not what I mean. The thematic root-present type is
> > very plainly a transfer from the subjunctive, mainly the aorist
> > subjunctive. It's a well-known observable and ongoing process which
> > is repeated by younger material in the individual languages.
>
> Not that "plainly". Evidently your idea is dependent on the antiquity
> of the aorist subjunctive which I don't accept. The subjunctive was
> originally unspecific to aspect, I figure.
There are retained present, aorist, and perfect subjunctives that agree
with each other in all corners of the IE territory where there is a
subjunctive at all. The doctrine that IE was like Tocharian or Old Irish
(which are never like each other) is contrary to the evidence that *can*
be observed.
This may no be as funny as you would like. I have a very personal theory
which I sometimes try to promote, one not much used these days: Sometimes
things are what they look like. But that is just a thought.
Jens