Re: [tied] IE vowels: The sequel.

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

> Jens:
> > When thematic noun stems appear as i-stems in the second part of
> > compounds the word is a bahuvrihi and so accented on the first

part

> > (Vedic gandhá- => dhu:má-gandhi-).
>
> I think you're misunderstanding. What I'm objecting to is the

statement

> that *i is simply the unaccented version (in any position) of the

thematic

> vowel which I think is untrue. I'm not denying that *i is the

unaccented

> version of the thematic vowel _under certain conditions_ (namely,
> pretonically).

But is that more than a statistic thing? Does it really matter that
much?

>
> So this is why I state that both *-o- and *-i- are found equally
> unaccented. This is what we find. You have examples showing

unaccented

> *-o- and unaccented *-i-... Well that's not the issue! The issue
> is _accented_ thematic *-i-. To that, you say what I already can

figure

> out myself: "End-stressed i-stems are not very common." Exactly!

That's

> because the *i is simply the reflex of the thematic vowel _before
> accent_.
>
> When accented *i-stems do occur, they are derivatives of *i-nouns,
> forming new *i-adjectives that are effectively semantically

identical

> to their *o-adjective counterparts, both versions being stressed on
> the final syllable as is the pattern of adjectives. Thus we could

have

> both *xargós or *xargís, it doesn't matter much but the

etymologies of

> both forms are slightly different.
>
>
> > Yes, sort of, it's the way I have just shown.
>
> Not really. You're only admitting to exactly what I'm saying: That
> *i-stems accented at the end are uncommon, just as we should expect
> if eLIE's "thematic vowel" *a [&] is raised, when preceding accent,
> to *i. I wish you wouldn't drag the *u-stems into this either since
> they really _do_ have a historical *u at the end of them, just like
> *suxnu-, *peku- and such.

Sorry, I'll leave that matter be in future when addressing you if
you prefer it that way.

> > We have evidence enough to believe that *bher- formed
> > lengthened-grade (Naerten) verbal forms, as the Tocharian ipf. of
> > pär- 'carry' which is based on *bhe:r-; perhaps *bhér-e-t(i) is
> > based on the acrostatic structure and has set the model for the

type

> > as such.
>
> Or... everything about *bHéreti is as we expect it to be.

Sure, if we make enough correct predictions it is. I can explain the
form as a regular Narten-present subjunctive, and I find it hard to
see what else it could possibly be. But I am severely embarrassed by
the fact that non-Narten presents and aorists form their
subjunctives in the very same way. Why would they all be based on
Narten presents? This is of course particularly hard to accept in
the case of aorists.

> Jens lumps everything together now:
> > Yes, the pure thematic forms were adjectival in origin, and they
> > generally show accent on the suffix. That, however, has nothing

to

> > do with suffixal formations containing suffixes of the structure

*-

> > Ce/o- [...] There is no way one can derive the accented thematic
> > vowel of *pr.k^-sk^é-ti 'asks'
>
> This drivvel has nothing to do with the adjective/noun thematic

stem

> pairs in question or *o/*i alternations. Topic derailment.
>
>
> > For the sake of the argument, of what was *H2ug-ró-s 'strong'

(Ved.

> > urgá-) the genitive?
>
> This has been addressed a long time ago: Adjectives did not

originally

> agree with the noun. This only started during the time of

Nominative

> Misanalysis since genitival adjectives were misunderstood as being
> in agreement with animate nominative nouns. So there is **no**

genitive

> of what would have been *xugrás in eLIE, since it already **is** a
> genitive.

So I read, but of what? And if what is *sod-i-tó-s 'made sit down'
the genitive? And *néw-o-s? And *bhér-o-m&1no-s 'being carried' and
*dhugh-m.H1nó-s 'being utilized'?

> Taking a noun *kwa:ns "dog", we'd simply have a phrase like
> */kwa:n-s xugrás/, the accusative being */kwánm xugrás/ at that

time.

> There are no grammatical problems with that.

Except that we do not really see the language act this way. It may
be pure make-believe.

> > Only in the sense that you are changing the subject and whoevber
> > cares to read your post loses the thread; *-om is not collective.
>
> We've gone over this with examples like *yugom and *pedom. You have
> your peculiar slant on it and I don't agree with it.
>
>
> > No, it means it could be so. Many other languages have it

differently,

> > what if *they* are parallels?
>
> Really? Which ones? You're the only one drawing blanks now.

You are not honestly trying to defend the position that *all*
languages are like Mandarin, are you? I have a feeling many are
different from Mandarin, and so the same ought to be conceivable for
the prestage of PIE you are talking about. There is no argumentative
weight in the prospect that what you have imagined would make the
language parallel with Mandarin if it is true. There is nothing a
priori to indicate that it would be parallel to precisely that
language, so it's much more likely that it isn't. Is there no-one
else among those reading this who can see that?

> > There was indeed an interplay of oxytone adjectives and barytone
> > substantives. It quite probably had indeed come about by the
> > formation of adjectives which had added an accented thematic

vowel;

> > the system tómos : tomós may well be a reflexion of this. It is
> > connected with very grave difficulties however to derive the
> > thematic vowel itself by simple resegmentation of genitives.
>
> Yet again, you reject the idea but you don't give succinct points
> in your favour. You've "been there, done that" but your experience
> doesn't impress me if you can't even share what you've actually
> learned from it.

When I "was there and did that" I found that the genitive of the
thematic class is not identical with the nominative: The nom.sg. in
*-o-s cannot have the same sibilant as the genitive in *-es-yo which
has thematic vowel /e/, nor the same vowel as the genitive of
athematic stems *-os whích alternates with zero and so is not the
thematic vowel. It took a while to digest that and it hurt a bit,
for the alternative had some appealing points which influenced my
naive thinking of the time.

> > As I said, that's what I once thought too. I got wiser.
>
> Goody for you. You're just a wiseguy now, aren'tcha :)

I'm trying my best. The process can be recommended.

> > Typo? I claim that *-i- is, in a series of archaic remains of a
> > morphological variation later given up, the *unaccented*

counterpart

> > of the thematic vowel. The facts are all in Wackernagel's and

even

> > Brugmann's handbooks; Benveniste added many observations saying

the

> > same thing.
>
> Alright, then it seems the matter between us is simply the idea of
> whether *i is the reflex of thematic *o pretonically or not. I've
> been claiming it is so far.

Do you really invest that much in statistics?

> > No, I consider the -e- of the nom.pl. in *-es an anaptyctic

vowel.

>
> Alright. I guess I will have to accept that at the very least we
> both understand the *e here is affected for one reason or another.
> You say it's anaptyctic, I say it avoids reduction to *a to keep it
> distinct from other endings. One way or another the *e here is odd,
> so at least we have a point of agreement.
>

My analysis at least gets the accent right; presence of a vowel
would make the nom.pl. a weak case which it is not. If that point is
given priority the rest follows by itself. Even so, I would of
course have liked the emergence of the vowel in *-es to be supported
by parallel cases. That wish however has not been granted.

> > Indeed, in so far as this means that *o was an intermediate stage
> > between *e and zero. We see this when unaccented *e is lengthened
> > and then survives as */o:/.
>
> It should be apparent that the reduction of unaccented *e to *o (by
> added rounding??!) is far less natural than *e being reduced to *a

[&]

> by plain ol' deperipheralization found in a whole slew of languages
> worldwide. Again, you take the stubborn exotic route and I still

don't

> understand why.

Of course rounding can be added, many languages have done so. You
also have it emerge from an additional dose of quantity, not by
influence from anything rounded. I regard it an increase in sonority
caused, not by weakening directly, but by the lowering of the tone
accompanying the accentual weakening. That actually brings it in
line with phonetic naturalness, strange as it may seem at first
glance. I hardly need to say that this was not my first guess, but
also took a while to get round to. If there are better ways I'll
listen, but not uncritically.

> > I did not need this help. We all agree that unaccented short

vowels are

> > lost in most positions. I do not think they were lost in stem-

final

> > position where we find the thematic vowel instead, but I have

yet to

> > consider several options as to the cause of this.
>
> You "do not think" they were lost in stem-final position but you

have

> no evidence against it.

I see the vowel is there, to me that's as good a reason as any to
think it has not been lost.

> So while you have no arguement against it, you
> feel the need to treat stem-final position differently than other
> positions but... based on nothing. Hunh? Ridiculous.

Based, not on nothing, but on the observable presence of the vowel.
It may be an idiosyncratic method rarely used, but it's valid for me.

> > In this we work alike. However your odd names of stages have had

the

> > effect of a shield behind which you have been hiding. Nobody

else (I

> > would believe) knows what your labels mean, at least I do not

know it,

>
> You personally don't keep track because you think you know

everything

> and nobody else has a right to contribute. Whatever. As for others,
> the way they can understand my supposedly mysterious labels is to
> follow my posts carefully or ... god forbid, ask questions! I

purposely

> try to word my posts such that the labels I give can be understood

by

> context. Some unfortunately find that asking questions is a

forboding

> and humiliating task. I can't help them, really.

No, I think it is up to you to communicate. It's about time.

Jens