--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:
> Torsten:
> > Isn't it easier to do it in two steps: at first thematic stems
> > accented the thematic vowel throughout the paradigm (thereby
> > destroying all information in the paradigm of any shifting
accent),
> > then the accent was moved, uniformly accross the paradigm, since
> > there was no way to reconstruct the original irregularity?
>
> You think two steps are easier than one, eh? Hmm.
>
>
I think it makes it easier.
Step one: the suffix is accented, because it is an accented suffix
(-ó-) (nice explanation, huh?).
Step two: stress is moved to some other syllable.
I think the thematic inflection is a generalisation of the gen.pl.
used in a negative construction: né <´>-om > ne <>-óm "no <>'s". In
that phrase the noun gets an indefinite sense "some of <>" (and from
there -óm become used to form collectives) and is then reanalysed as
ne <>ó-m, ie. as if the stem ended in a stressed -ó-. This new stem
now has acquired an indefinite sense in opposition to the the
definitenes of the athematic one (remember catus/Cato-n-). Later the
gen.pl. suffix becomes -o-om, to match the -om suffix of the
athematics.
In your single step, you have no way of justifying the sudden
regularisation. It happens by fiat.
Torsten