From: elmeras2000
Message: 33339
Date: 2004-07-01
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:
On we go ...
> Furthermore, it's sensible that the etymological core of such stems
> should contain accent, because it is afterall the semantic heart
of the
> word. So nominal *bHor-o-s should as a result be attributed to
earlier
> *bár-a-, not *bar-á- (more appropriate for an adjective).
The types *bhor-ó-s and *bhór-o-s show forms that can only have been
created with accent on the suffix. The adjectival form *bhor-ó-s
will therefore be original, and the substantial variant formed by
accent contrast. The real vowel grade of the root is zero here, and
the -o- is an infixed morpheme, originally phonetically non-
syllabic.
> The alternation of *e and *o by the thematic vowel is quite
radical,
> most efficiently explainable by lengthening before voiced segments
as
> found elsewhere in languages. The length differences then seed the
> further phonemic differences as we see them. It's hard to believe
that
> this alternation could be brought about so regularly if the accent
were
> present on that syllable in some cases and not in others. It also
seems
> just as unlikely that these subtle length contrasts between the
> protoforms of *e and *o could be possible in accented syllables
that
> already are well known to show length contrasts of *e/*e: and
*o/*o:.
> Either we may deduce that the thematic vowel is accented and then
wrestle
> with exceedingly rare triple-length contrasts as you do, Jens, or
we may
> come to our senses by siding with the inevitable, that the
syllable of
> the thematic vowel was unaccented and thus any length contrasts
therein
> went towards producing later *e and *o.
Adding semilength in the thematic vowel brings the matrix up to
fours degrees of quantity. That may not be alarming since the extra
dose of quantity is subphonemeíc as long as the vocing remains in
the following segment. It become very alarming however when it is
considered that the same
> > Further down you're gloating about my acceptance of accent on
> > the vowel marking the subjunctive (although that is not the best
of the
> > examples, far from it); now that is the thematic vowel.
>
> Actually no. It's not. It's ultimately a suffix *-he-. Thus, what
is
> transcribed as *bHere:t may in fact be *bHer-e-he-t. By laryngeal
loss
> and concatenation, that still yields *e: here.
I see no evidence for an analysis of the subjunctive morpheme as *-
H1e-. But neither do I see any solid evidence against it, or against
*-H1e/o- for the thematic vowel in a general sense for that matter.
Do we know that *néwo-s is not *newH1os? Or that *bhér-e-ti is not
in reality *bhér-H1e-ti? I don't think we do. But what is the charm
of the added *-H1-? That it can be separated from the thematic vowel
as such? Note that even a suffix "*-H1e/o-" *contains* the thematic
vowel, so anything assumed for the thematic vowel should apply to
the subjunctive morpheme also, as indeed seems to be the case.
> > For some reason you do not accept the stem-elaborating vowel of
the
> > subjunctive of reduplicated formations as a representative of the
> > thematic vowel; perhaps because it means something and *is*
> > underlyingly accented?
>
> No, because you misunderstand this suffix and it actually
represents
> *-he- with or without the _real_ thematic vowel that precedes it.
One would indeed like to see some substantiation of this point of
view which appears completely arbitrary (but not impossible). How do
you know it is not the other way around, that thematic vowels you do
accept are in fact *-H1e/o- and the subjunctive-marking morpheme
only a vowel?
> > I was not referring to anything in Akkadian. But do you have to
scrape
> > for a specific Akkadian word to exemplify a varied vocalism?
That is
> > remarkable in itself.
>
> It's remarkable when any language has no irregularities.
That was not the message, nor even the wording of the quote.
> So when Grande
> says what he says, I don't feel obliged to listen when it violates
> the tendency of natural languages. Why should Semitic be regular?
Is he making it up? He could well be, such people do exist, as I
have now seen.
> Akkadian isn't perfectly regular. Is any Semitic language truly so
> perfect that there is _no_ variation whatsoever? You're saying
without
> shame that a theoretical construct like Proto-Semitic truly has no
> deviation from expected morphological vowel alternations? Or are
you
> just too stubborn to admit that we probably don't know enough about
> it to identify the irregularities that surely exist within it? That
> sounds astonishing. Forgive me if I can't come to grips with that
> unlikelihood.
>
>
> > I do not have too much literature on Semitic at hand, but I read
> > in B.M.Grande, Vvedenie v sravnitel'noe izuc^enie semitskix
jazykov
> > (Moskva 1972): "Thus vowels fulfil the function of grammatical
elements
> > in the words, their role in a word being auxiliary. The
character and
> > consistency of vowel sounds in the word are one [sic] of the
basic
> > morphological means in the Semitic languages" (103).
>
> I know the role vowels play, but I doubt the degree
of 'consistency'.
> There must be exceptions, even if they aren't found yet. Even if
it's
> 99% consistent, that is more believable than being 100% consistent.
Please tell us about the remaining 1 %. That might be a constructive
way to use your expertise.
> > And later: "2.3.2. The general formula given under 2.3.1. and
> > characterizing the Semitic root is actually completely valid only
> > for Arabic and the Southern Peripheral Semitic languages. It is
valid
> > there for all verbal as well as for all nominal roots, ..." (64).
>
> So by this quote, are you intending to stand behind it and assert
to
> us that Arabic or Southern Peripheral Semitic languages contain no
> irregularities in vocalism, whether they be recent or historic? All
> vowels in those languages serve SOLELY morphological purposes? I
think
> that's a very dangerous position to uphold, this is.
It's what the man said. I'm only quoting it. Where is he wrong?
Please tell us if you know.
> > I have no serious insight by which I could evaluate the
correctness of
> > these statements independently. Are they *very* wrong?
>
> No. I'd say they are 'slightly' wrong. A matter of mistaking an
almost
> regular situation for an absolute state of affairs.
But that is not zero, so keeping the possibility open that some
prestage of PIE could have been of the same structure is not
typologically excluded. That would involve a perfect or near-perfect
one-vowel system in the lexicon, but a more varied vocalism in the
grammar. That is not very different from what we observe in the
attested IE languages.
> > Against what illusory rule is Akkadian illik a counterexample?
>
> Against the rules by which Akkadian normally operates. It is an
> 'irregular' verb as all can see in any textbook, meaning that it
isn't
> the expected form based on most other verbs. Since Akkadian has
this and
> other irregular verbs, we can state comfortably that this language
isn't
> perfect and does indeed have some variation in vocalism in the
verb stem,
> beyond just the typical morphophonological alternations we
normally see.
>
> Examples like these would have us accept that there must have also
been
> such inescapable surprises in IE morphology.
Your aggressive protest was against my assessment of the vocalism of
the lexicon, not the morphology.
> We know of these already
> but it's a matter of simply surrendering ourselves to the imperfect
> humanity of the proto-language we're reconstructing. We must allow
> ourselves to accept what is attested that defy the overall pattern:
> *o-grade presents, Narten verbs, stems with original *a-vocalism,
etc.
Only the last point is one of lexicon (meaning roots rather than
stems). We cannot discuss this if you do not stay focused.
>
> >> Again, no language I know of "weakens" /e/ to /o/.
> >
> > Yacketi-yak:
>
> Translation: "I can't bring myself to accept that gLeN has a point
here.
Sure I can't. What would be the basis of saying such a silly thing?
> Instead I will reassert silly things like 'It's a commonly used
short way
> of saying the unaccented form of what would otherwise have ended
up as IE
> /e/ is weakened to what in the end surfaces as IE /o/' in order to
> neglect my obligation to logically defend my point of view."
>
> Evidently if you can't explain the in-betweens of your theory,
they are
> underdevelopped and lacking.
Of course they are. I am not denying my limitations. I can see yours
as well.
> It's understandable then, that I reject
> your views on the exact development of *e/*o alternation and stick
> with the 'lengthening' idea.
There you go: this is a point where I do specify details, as you
want me even on points where there is no basis for it. When I do,
you use the fact that I do not specify some other things in other
contexts as a pretext for dismissing what you have no relevant
arguments against.
> You say "I thereby avoid specifying things I do not know." Then why
> are you talking at all on this forum since you don't know pre-IE
> anymore than I 'know' it? It's because you have a view to defend.
> Defend it, man, or drop your case!
That'll be my own decision.
Now it's getting too long again. So much for this time.
Jens