--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:
> All *i-reduplicated stems are examples for one thing (eg: *gi-
gnehW-,
> *bHi-bHer-, etc) but no doubt you'll say that they show initial
accent,
> ignoring the big tip-off that [...]
This is correct for the vowel of reduplications; in fact I was the
one to publish that rule, much against common opinion. I have had
many kind reactions in private, but you are the first to declare
acceptance of it in public. Nice as it is, this is not the thematic
vowel. We were talking about thematic vowels, you know those
appearing in stem-finals. So, nice try, fairly close too, but no
cigar, to quote a lame line.
To complete this I should perhaps add that the -i- of reduplications
*is* accented when the stem-formation is thematic: Ved. tís.t.hati,
píbati, desid. cíki:rs.ati, etc. Greek has hízein, tíktein, hízo:n,
tíkto:n, and the thematic vowel is unaccented in gignó:skein,
gignó:sko:n. This reflects my rule of retraction onto the
reduplication of an accent originally located on a syllable that was
separated from the reduplication by an intervening syllable. When
such an accent is retracted from an athematic stem the reduplication
shows -e-, when it is thematic it shows -i-: The accent was
apparently given up by normal vowels first, and by thematic (stem-
final) vowel only later, and the reduction of the unaccented
reduplicatory vowel to (the prestage of) -i- occurred in the
intervening period.
> The original accent in the *i-reduplicated stems is on the second
> syllable.
Sure thing, nice to be understood.
> We then don't need an imaginary *i-infix here
> because we can unceremoniously explain *i in these stems as the
reflex
> of phonetic schwa in an open syllable before accent.
No, that gives zero: gen.sg. *H2n.r-ós (stem *H2ner- 'man').
And now it comes ...
> Not only are *i-reduplicated stems an example of pretonic schwa,
we also
> have compounds with the first element in *i, like say, *xegri-
kWolex
> "farmer", derived from *xegro- "field" and *kWolex "tiller". Things
> like this only make sense if an underlying stage had *xegra-kWálax
> with the first *a being pretonic and predictably raised to *i just
as
> I've been saying. Common sense.
Wait, I can't see the accent mark on agricola, and if I could it
would not amount to much since it's Latin. What is the basis of a
stem variant of Greek agrós, Ved. ájra- with -i- as its stem vowel?
I don't know such a form at all.
And your previous post had this goody:
"
> As I've observed, *i is normally
> pretonic overall while *o is seen posttonically (and thus more
common).
> Of course, we can do nothing about exceptions to the rule (they
will
> always exist) but as long as they are the minority situation, we're
> doing good. -"
Indeed, too good to be true. I understand that the statistic values
are very important, so I'll give them due consideration in future.
"
> My "pretonic" explanation of *i-alternations of the thematic vowel
even
> makes perfect sense phonetically. In anticipation of the accent, a
> vowel will become tense and rise as we find here. When after
accent, the
> vowel will tend to "loosen up" and drop to [&] as I suggest.
Phonemes
> after the accent will tend to be less audibly clear afterall. -"
And -i- is too audible to be found there, I take it? Perhaps we
should consult the language - just a thought.
"
> Well, you may call me crazy but I see the *o/*i variations clear as
> day now (thanks), but *o/*u variations? Do we find **xargu-? Can
it be
> said to mean the same as *xargi- or *xargo-, let's say? It doesn't
look
> like a typical pattern like *o/*i is. And we don't even see
> *u-reduplicated verbs. -"
Well, we do, -u- is the unaccented reduplication vowel with roots
containing -u-. But all that is not even remotely interesting in
comparison with this:
I set a trap for you. I made it appear that you were right about /i/
being restricted to pretonic position wherever regular. Now, it so
happens that i-stems are *never* accented after the /i/. What you
portray as the rule, based on what you have "observed" as what "is
seen", except in "the minority situation", is the only variant NOT
found! There are i-stem forms with accent before the -i- (the
majority type, in Greek the only type), and with accent on the -i-
(a minority type in Vedic, but certainly there), but even the latter
do not accent any desinential part that may follow (apart from the
completely analogical Vedic gen.pl. in -i:ná:m which goes with -
íbhyas, -íbhis, -ís.u). Nor do they allow accent on the second part
in compounds. Your "*xargi-" is in reality *H2r.g^-í- in both Greek
argí-pous and Vedic r.jí-s'van-. The only real material of any size
of -i- in alternation with -e-/-o- appears *after* the accent or in
compounds *with* the accent. I have looked high and low, but I have
not found Caland's adjective-suffix representative -i- *before* the
accent. It just does not seem to exist.
I wanted to see if you really meant this, so I gave you the
impression that I felt caught when I asked if that really mattered.
Well, to you it did, and of course you very much meant it. And well,
the language just didn't. That was perhaps not nice of me, and
perhaps I should feel terrible about it. I'm not even shamed to
admit it feels just fine.
Jens