Jens:
> [...] and the thematic vowel is unaccented in gignó:skein,
> gignó:sko:n.
Forgot about that recent *-ske- suffix. My bad.
> When such an accent is retracted from an athematic stem the
> reduplication shows -e-, when it is thematic it shows -i-:
Since *bHer- shows both *bHebHor- and *bHibHer-, and since we know that
*bHer- is irrefutably a thematic stem, you assert yet another baseless
rule that can't possibly exist.
>> The original accent in the *i-reduplicated stems is on the second
>> syllable.
>
> Sure thing, nice to be understood.
I don't understand you, but it's nice to agree nonetheless.
>> 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').
No, you're confusing MIE schwa with eLIE schwa.
This *xnrós is of the same pattern as other athematic stems such as
*kwo:ns/*kunós that have already been explained. We see zeroing in
the genitive because of the loss of unaccented MIE *a. So in MIE,
we have a nominative *hanéra-sa with a normal genitive *hanar-ása
(with accented *e being reduced to unaccented *a), just as *kawána-sa
has genitive *kawan-ása. This all becomes *xné:rs/*xnrás after Syncope
just as we have *kwa:ns/*kunás. From there, Nominative Loss and Vowel
Shift create what is actually attested.
What we see here is _MIE unaccented *a_ (which disappears after Syncope),
It's not eLIE unaccented *a, which is from MIE *e. That later schwa can
indeed become *i pretonically. You're not following properly.
> 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.
Well, true enough, I guess. I'd presume that a compound like this would
have accent on the initial in the latest stage of IE since it's the
acrostatic crap again. It would be exceedingly hard to identify a
compound built with a thematic stem plus athematic stem, which is
what we need to see the pattern clearly. However, we can use the
Acrostatic Regularization rule, which is real enough, to understand
what has happened.
> Well, we do, -u- is the unaccented reduplication vowel with roots
> containing -u-.
Example? Evidence in multiple branches?
> I set a trap for you.
Not really, but whatever makes you happy. I don't pay as much heed
to your information as I once did, when first I found it to be tainted
by your biases. Look below.
> I made it appear that you were right about /i/ being restricted to
> pretonic position wherever regular.
It's irrelevant. The overall pattern of IE has led me to the conclusions
I state, not your 'wise counsel'.
The fact remains firm that the overall accent pattern in the latest stage
of IE has been significantly modified to the point that the far less
common _athematic_ stems are the ones that show any trace of the original
accent system. Any fool can see that the accent of thematic stems has
been regularized to the initial syllable and it is on this that I base my
conclusions.
As a result of this independent observation, I will inevitably end up
with conclusions about pre-IE accentuation that will defy what we come
to see in IE itself, just as there will be facts about Old English that
don't conform nicely to what we see in Modern English. Do I feel ashamed
that it violates statistics in this case? No, because only you are the
one that takes things out of context and generalizes to the point of
absurdity.
Statistics is one of many tools and facts to consider and in regards to
IE accentuation, statistics will not tell us that the acrostatic paradigm
is quite recent. It will instead betray us unless we properly weigh ALL
evidence in this matter.
> Now, it so happens that i-stems are *never* accented after the /i/.
Oh my. I feel violated by your irrelevant trickery. How might I pick
myself up and dust myself off? Why, I will now fashion a noose around
my neck and hang my desperate soul from a sturdy oak tree in order to
remove myself from your unbearable disdain >:P
In this case, I really don't care one way or another what you've said,
because I will still arrive at the same conclusions based on what I've
found beforehand without any of your input.
> Your "*xargi-" is in reality *H2r.g^-í- in both Greek argí-pous
> and Vedic r.jí-s'van-.
Minor detail in the first syllable. The accent here is still on the *i,
the main point afterall, because of the adjectival accent pattern. It
is unoriginal, derived from the genitival accent.
> The only real material of any size of -i- in alternation with -e-/-o-
> appears *after* the accent or in compounds *with* the accent.
Yes. And? As I mentioned above, to see the accent without change
(as if we really need to in this case to put two and two together), one
would have to think up a compound with a first element that is thematic
and a second element that is athematic. In this way, we might conceivably
get accent on the second stem in order to see a pretonic *i-stem,
assuming that such rare roots would not be prone to analogical change
or would truly be considered an athematic compound in all in order to
avoid acrostatic regularization. Good luck.
As I said above, because it is in this case the _rarer_ athematic stems
that preserve original accent at all, we can either wait for the perfect
evidence to come our way to spoonfeed us the result... or we can use our
noggin' and piece it together on our own. Yes, I know, you're afraid
of extrapolation as a logical tool and mistake it, as do most people,
with fertile imagination. The two are really not the same since
extrapolation is still based on facts while imagination is just ignorant
of them.
> 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.
For the umpteenth time, it's Acrostatic Regularization and some other
accentuation changes in Late IE that hinder your discovery. You may
never find such a thing, to be brutally honest, but that doesn't mean
what I'm saying is baseless or untrue. There are other considerations
other than statistics... yes it's true!
> 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.
Hey, if you want to put on the jester outfit, that's your fetish
but it honestly has nothing to do with anything. I'm glad you got
whatever neurosis off your chest. If there is a 'trap' here, it is the
one I set for you that you fall into every single time. This trap is
called constructive reasoning. What you've shown by this exercise is
that, being unable to demonstrate your points of view with any modicum of
logic, you now resort to trickery in order to 'attack' me (or whatever
it was supposed to be) out of obvious desperation. If you are desperate,
it suggests that you may have seen some worthy points come out of my
posts and rather than accept any of them outright, you will first repress
them out of fear of being wrong, hell, even throw a few condascending
ditties my way from time to time while you slowly digest the inevitables.
In fact, I'm not even ashamed to admit this feels just fine to me too.
:)
= gLeN