From: elmeras2000
Message: 33338
Date: 2004-07-01
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:
[Jens:]
> > 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.
>
> Then what's with the obsession with monovocalism?
The word obsession could rather be used about the fierce opposition
the very mention of the strong "lopsidedness" in the distribution of
the IE root vowels has caused. I have been driven to declare
repeatedly and consistently that I do not advocate a monovocalic
system for the final phase of PIE, but do consider it an obvious
possibility for some prestage of the protolanguage, however without
investing anything in it since it is neutral to the phonetic rules I
have proposed. Showing respect for the strong inequality in the
distribution of IE vowels may be called an obsession, but denying it
would be just that even more.
By "root vowels" I mean lexically given vowels of roots, not their
variants conditioned by phonology or morphology. It just so happens
that the overwhelming majority of IE roots display the
vocalism //e//. By "short e" is here meant a vowel that turns up as
short e in PIE if not changed by a rule before that stage, a
statement that should be read without prejudice of a higher degree
of phonetic accuracy than is attainable at this stage.
The monotonous picture of //e// does not exhaust the material
completely, but other vocalisms are so rare that an explanation is
needed. Some may just be phenotypes of underlying //e// after all
and so only illusory, some perhaps even according to rules we do not
know yet. But if there is a residue of true a-roots (and perhaps
also o-roots), the easiest explanation is that they have entered the
language after an event of merger of what used to be a more varied
vocalism into a single /e/ (or its prestage). It is also conceivable
that the single vowel is only apparent, and that it was in reality
more than one phoneme in an old period before the advent of *a and
*o from secondary sources. If, say, *e1 and *e2 both became *e at a
later time, we can only detect the vowel as a single unit. The
seeming one-vowel system should then be referred to as the only
vowel we can *detect* as a separate unit of a non-negligeable
frequency. Whether or not that detection is exhaustive will then
have to be left open. Scholars averse to minimal statements are then
free to imagine the prior existence of whatever extra units they
deem necessary to meet typological exigencies. The question can
never be settled positively, for it is based on silence. If
incontrovertible evidence of other vowels turns up, there are
others, but if it does not, we still do not know with certainty. But
whoever makes a point out of not imagining what they can't know
about will have to accept a one-vowel system; and whoever makes a
point out of imagining the possibility of what they don't know will
have to keep the possibility of a one-vowel system open for whatever
prestage of PIE this may apply to. Leaving the decision up to
typology may be a fine rule of thumb which will, on average,
certainly work better than going against typology. But that does not
really justify the issuing of a decree that there was *no* stage
along the way in which there was only one vowel phoneme. To issue
such a statement one would have to have full control over all stages
of the language development which of course nobody has. So which is
it gonna be - was there, after the advent of new vowels from unknown
sources, a complete merger of an earlier varied vocalism that left
no trace we can detect? or was there a stage somewhere in the
prehistory where there really was only one vowel? Both scenarios are
possible.
> On the formation of thematic vowel:
> > 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.
>
> Nominal declension doesn't show that the thematic vowel was
accented.
It does not show much that is pertinent to the question. What little
it does show is that the thematic vowel was not followed by the
accent. Thematic stems may be accented on the thematic vowel or on
an earlier vowel of the stem. The alternation observed in *kWér-tu-
s : *kWr.-tó-s : *´+kWr-ti-s (Vedic kártum : kr.tá-s : bráhma-kr.ti-
) sends a powerful message to any mind.
> It shows the opposite.
It does not.
> If one can accept Acrostatic Regularization,
> we must of course accept that the nominal thematic stem may no
longer
> retain the original accentuation. However, in many many cases, we
see
> a full vowel in the core of the stem. Sadly, we also see that
> the thematic vowel is full. What we learn from this is that these
> thematic nouns are a recent product because they fail to conform to
> the ancient quantitative ablaut where zeroing is expected in one of
> these syllables, not full-grade in both. Sometimes it's even
weirder
> and we have *wlkWos completely contradicting quantitative ablaut
> outright with accent on the zeroed syllable and an unaccented but
guna
> thematic vowel. Thankfully, we can understand in this case that
*wlkWos
> is derived from an adjective where the vocalism would then be in
line
> with the accent.
It may be noted that the underlying adjective then had its accent on
the thematic vowel.
> Now if we have a stem like CVC-o- with fullgrade in both
syllables, we
> can either put accent on the initial syllable in the preform, or on
> the thematic vowel. If we put it on the thematic vowel, it
admittedly
> conforms nicely with the observed adjectival accentuation. The only
> problem is that adjectival accentuation is just as clearly
regularized
> as nominal thematic stems and its accentuation must be under
suspicion
> too.
Of course, but having accent on the thematic vowel explains more:
The adjectival function, expressed by the thematic suffix, and the
agreement of abalut and accent. This may be unappealing to a would-
be explorer's temperament, but it explains what we set out to get
explained.
> The other option is that the accent is on the first syllable, the
core
> of the stem, and this has the added attraction that it
acknowledges that
> just by removing the unaccented thematic, we have its athematic
> equivalent. Pretty simple stuff.
Very simple indeed, even simpler than the facts. If it mattered, we
would also have the coveted "athematic equivalent" if we removed an
accented thematic suffix from it. It would have to be given a new
accent, sure, but that should not be a problem. Indeed, if a
thematic adjective is stripped of its thematic vowel, what emerges
is indeed in many examples the nominal base from which it was
derived. That is the case with ordinals derived from cardinals, the
passive to- and no- participles derived from agent nouns in -t- and -
n-, all possessive adjectives, and all nominal o-infix formations.
These are all accented on the added thematic vowel. The vrddhi-
formations have both accent types, being just "contrary to base",
but complying the ablaut rules in a residue with suffixal -i-
repesenting the treatment of a thematic vowel that was deprived of
its accent which had been retracted to the inserted mora of the root
syllable (Ved. páurukutsi-).
> If the thematic were accented, we'd
> also have to explain the alternation of accent between the
athematic and
> thematic variants. This is unneeded and not even what we see
anyways.
That is a non-issue. The accentuation of the underlying non-thematic
base, if there is one, is immaterial. What observations is this
lecturing based on?
>
> From *dye:us and *deiw-o-, are we going to claim that there was
once
> **deiw-ó-? This still doesn't explain *dyeu-! Why make this
complicated?
> Instead, it's more clear when we accept that *deiw-o- is fixed with
> initial accent because of Acrostatic Regularization and *dyeu-
shows
> the older accent with a former but now desyllabified first
syllable *dy-
> and accented second syllable shown by the segment *-eu-, indicating
> earlier MIE *dayéu- underlying both forms. Acrostatic
Regularization
> would cause a thematicized noun *diéwa-s to become *déiwa-s while
> ignoring *die:u-s.
This must be a high-and-mighty lecturing based on an IE
form "*déiwos" (cited as "*déiwas" for reasons that escape me). The
form is in fact *deiwó-s, i.e. the horror which the bombastic
lecturing is meant to warn us against: Vedic devá-s, Lith. die~vas
of accent class 4. There may be many incomprehensible reasons to
expect this to be different, but this is what it is.
Good grief, this goes on ad infinitum. Does anybody read this? I
send off this batch now, and I may be back to react to the rest if I
find it worth my time. No promises.
Jens