When I tell you that you have a nebulous stance, perhaps not even
having one at all, you retort "You were making claims, not I" which sums
up our problem. Yes, I _am_ making claims so that they may be falsified
by others if Logic so demonstrates, otherwise I would never learn.
Anyone who hides behind a non-stance is clearly afraid of falsification
and ultimately of further learning.
Jens:
> A 1-vowel system is unacceptable for the PIE we reconstruct.
> Was there a 1-vowel system once in the prehistory of PIE? Very
> probably.
You continue to ignore important differences between Sanskrit and IE.
In Sanskrit, there is a merger of *e, *a and *o no doubt because
a single vowel in Sanskrit, namely /a/, is attributable to all three
IE vowels. In IE, there is no such single vowel. Instead we must ask
"What is *e attributable to previously? And what is *o originally?"
That in itself is sufficiently different from the situation in Sanskrit
to negate its application here.
In IE, there is no "single vowel" evident. Instead we have to invent one
to suit our headstrong claims but the evidence shows that there is a need
for two vowels to explain the morphophonemics of the language. All
the complexity that we see in IE can't possibly come from a single
vowel at any time within the last thousand or two thousand years of IE's
development. It's far too complex. The solution is fundamentally absurd.
THEMATIC VOWELS
---------------
> It ought to be quoted as *kWér-tu-
Really? Yet we have *kWr-to-. I thought you said this is simple
thematic alternation. I think this qualifies as "contra-hoc".
> Now, /u/ is a phoneme of the language, so it is not unexpected if
> there is more than one thing that contains it. That seems to be
> important for what follows:
Yes, but *-eu-/*-u- is also a _morpheme_, as in *hWr-n-eu- "to cause
to move", *bHr-eu- "to boil", *pek-u- "herd", *gWehW-u- "cow" and
*gWr-u- "heavy". It has some sort of transitive function like *-ex-,
probably absolutive somehow, marking the patient of transitive actions
and the agent of intransitive ones. Its relationship to transitivity
properly explains why we see both *-n-ex- and *-n-eu- for the causitive.
Both are transitive suffixes attached to the durative-marking *n-infix.
To further substantiate the claim, we must observe *pek-u-, from
transitive verb *pek- "to comb" and *-u- marking the patient of the
action, hence "that which is combed" (suggesting the original semantics
of *peku- as specifically "herd of sheep"). In *gWehW-u- "cow", the verb
in question is intransitive *gWehW- "to graze" and so the noun is the
_agent_ of the action in this case.
If this isn't enough, we also find the predictable Tyrrhenian equivalent
*-u, showing that it's an old morpheme. Lo and behold, it's even used as
a passive participle in Etruscan /car-u/ "made" from /car-/ "to make",
a form that's precisely parallel to IE *kWer-tu-.
While *-to-/*-ti- is a true alternation, *-tu- in *kWer-tu- is in
reality the combination of *kWer- "make" + *-t- (substantive) and this
suffix *-u- (patient). The resultant meaning will still be almost
exactly what we see for stems in *-to- and *-ti- and may be converted
to an adjective at will by accent alternation. Again, as an adjective,
the meaning will be almost if not completely identical with that of
the *o/*i counterparts.
The supposed "thematic *u" is a mirage, void of deeper analysis.
Me:
> [...] such as with the transitive to form *-nex-.
Jens:
> And is there a transitive morpheme in that?
Yes, *-ex- as in *?y-ex- "to go" (*ei-), *duk-ex- "lead" (*deuk-),
*mn-ex- "to be mindful of" (*men- "to think").
> Both *-ne-w-/*-n-u- and *-ne-H-/*-n-H- have the old
> factitive/causative morpheme *-n(e)- [...]
No, the *n-infix is said to be a present marker by most.
> Adjectives are frequently u-stems, why I just do not really know,
Because you're being stubborn. As I said *-u- is a most possibly
an absolutive marker. So the *u-stem adjectives are derived from
nominal stems. We could theoretically do it with *bHébHr-u- "that
which is brown; beaver" (*bHer- "to be brown, dark") and make
*bHebHr-ú- "brown; beaver-like" out of it.
> I only know *-ne-H- from presents made from roots in H, as Ved.
> krin.á:ti, OIr. crenaid 'buys' from *kWri-ná-H2-ti.
Yes, and this *-ex- is a transitive marker.
> The w/u of *k^l.-né-w-ti 'hears' is a part of the root *k^lew- as
> analysed by Saussure.
Yes, but Saussure didn't catch everything. He's long dead now. Let
go of his ghost and let his spirit free :) The interesting fact is
that we see *kleu-/*kl-n-eu- as we do. It's tempting giving these
facts to allow ourselves to segment the verb into *kel- and *-eu-...
Well, that just makes sense both morphologically and semantically. The
verb *kal- is "to call out (to someone)", so if *-u- has absolutive
function *kal-u- would yield "that which is called" (ie: "that which
hears the cry") and by making a verb out of it, we get *kl-eu- "to
hear". We subsequently get an unexpected derivative *kl-n-eu- that
only makes sense if the stem is analysed in this way, as a denominal.
> I do not think you can peel out a common semantic core for the u's
> of *pek^-u- and "cow" - certainly not one you can use with the last
> element of *kWér-t-u-.
I just did, my analysis supported by various examples, and I even
supplied an external equivalent in neighbouring Tyrrhenian.
Concerning a u-reduplication of *ku-kleu-:
> Right about what? I wasn't asserting anything;
You were and _are_ asserting that thematic vowels alternate not only
between *o and *i but *u as well. The u-reduplication you mentioned
is logically immaterial to this assertion. However, thank you for
letting me know of this. It was something that I hadn't really pondered
despite being long ago aware of /s'us'rava/.
> If you insist on calling the vowel of reduplications with -i- or
> -e- "thematic", then -u- also is, but only in that uncommon sense.
No, only in a literal, superficial sense. I use the term in an
etymological sense because this is what we discussing, etymology. While
I see that *i and *e/*o even in reduplications derives from a
non-morphemic 'thematic vowel' (aka schwa), the instances of *u and
even *u-reduplication cannot be attributed to this stage of Pre-IE
because they don't derive directly, if at all, from the eLIE thematic
vowel. The *u-reduplication is simply *i-reduplication with a twist.
> Indeed I account for that with the infix theory.
Alright, but there is a danger in adding vowels at will simply to
repair against what we do not find and before you attack my QAR for
the same reason, at least here there is an accent pattern that
predicts a final vowel and that by this addition we regularize the
accent. The basis for the addition of vowel in QAR is the accent.
In contrast, by repairing a lack **bHr-o- with infixing, what is the
basis? It isn't even an impossible form when we have things like
*pro. So the o-infixing is purely ad hoc. Empty assertion again.
> Why "syllabic"? Did I say that?
You stated that *-to- was thematic *-t- and *-no- was thematic *-n-,
but I fail to see what *-n- would be otherwise in this context!
If you take away the vowel in *-no-, we get a syllabic *n. ???
I said "*-r instead" because we don't find a morpheme *-n anywhere.
We find *-r instead due to Rhotacization in Mid IE of final *-n. So
if anything, one might relate *-no- to *-r. Even so, I don't think
they are connected. So what IS your position here, if any? What were
you trying to tell me in the first place?
> The addition of the thematic morpheme accounts very well for the model
> it creates.
I and many others can't entertain that notion for the _fact_ that there
is no singular semantic attributable to such a thing. It is a vowel,
that's all it is, that's all we see, even if we look deeper into pre-IE.
You insist on it; I still don't get a lucid answer as to why.
= gLeN