Re: [tied] Re: Monovocalism: sequel

From: enlil@...
Message: 33371
Date: 2004-07-05

On the subjunctive, Jens:
> But it should also have a motivation in the subjunctive; and the
> positing of two separate structures, one thematic "*bhér-e-ti", the
> other subjunctive "*H1éy-H1e-ti" to go by your instructions, should
> also have a motivation.

There is no such motivation because it cannot be shown clearly that
the thematic vowel is a MORPHEME. It has no succinct usage that explains
it's wide and varied use in all word categories. Rather, the WYSIWYG
solution is the simplest here: The thematic is a redundant vowel. Duh!

The 'subjunctive' has been given a name for the very fact that it has a
clear function. More duh! Any analysis of the subjunctive forms at the
very least shows a morpheme *-e- added to both athematic and thematic
stems, as you admit. However a single vowel void of consonant does not
conform to known IE phonotactic restraints on morphemes.

All other morphemes in IE have at the very least one _consonant_ as a bare
minimum (such as the nominative *-s, aorist *-s-, 3ps *-t and indicative
*-i). While the thematic vowel cannot be called a morpheme, the
subjunctive clearly is and must conform to these syllable rules. Therefore
there is something wrong with a plain ol' subjunctive **-e- by that
criterion.

If we are to obey the rules of IE, either we say that the subjunctive is
very very very very different from everything else in IE or we cave in to
the bombardment of common sense. We conclude that the subjunctive is
*-he- (aka *-H1e-) because only this can satisfy the resultant *-e- in
daughter languages while satisfying the phonotactics at the same time.
So while *h is necessary for the subjunctive morpheme, it is pointless
by Occam's Razor for the thematic vowel because it's not by any definition
a morpheme. The mere possibility of something doesn't make it right, as
we all know.


On the morphemic status of thematic vowels, Jens:
> They patently adjectivise when on their own. But often they just
> constitute the final part of a suffix ending in a vowel. They also
> appear in the pronouns where they apparently do little more than
> constitute an inflectible stem.

They adjectivize? So *bHer-e-ti is an adjective? Is the verb a pronoun
now? This is ridiculously ad hoc and confusing. Have fun on your logic
merry-go-round. There is no underlying function here, you surely realize,
and ergo the thematic vowel is not a morpheme. It is a grammaticist's
invention to best explain morphological patterns but not a real entity
in itself. Are you aware of the perils of reification?


> That is no valid criterion by any standard: Why can't a morpheme
> have the structure *-e/o-,

It's not the case in IE. Morphemes always have at least one consonant.


> I am a bit surprised you have not used a potential argument I do
> see in favour of what you are saying, viz., the failure of the
> thematic vowel of the verbal stem to turn into /o/.

Yes, that's an interesting point but things go differently then what
you convey in your explanation. In my account, we start with eLIE 1ps
subjunctive *bHera-he-m. Here no matter what, the trailing voiceless
*-h- always prevents the preceding 'thematic vowel' *a from lengthening
and hence it never becomes *o, only *e. The subjunctive morpheme, being
*-he-, has the vowel *e (not *a!!!) so it CANNOT be lengthened before
voiced phonemes. Only *a is affected by Schwa Diffusion afterall and
only this shows later *e/*o alternation... but this would force one to
admit to TWO vowels, *e and *a, in any prestages of IE.

That is then sufficient amongst the other things I've mentioned to show
that my solution is most optimal.


> QAR (whole core unit is "penultimate" if I remember correctly) has
> said many things already to which the facts just did not listen.

Yes, and the exceptions mostly show that they are patterns of later
accent change in themselves (such as the pattern of thematic nouns
to push accent to first syllable). Once these curtains are removed, the
pattern of QAR fully reveals itself.

However, QAR in fact predicts the accent of *bHibHérti! The error in
that regard was not that of QAR but my own, by foolishly expecting
**bHíbHereti. Had the verb been thematic, the accent would indeed be on
the first syllable via Acrostatic Regularization, a post-QAR rule,
however. QAR cannot be expected to cover every odd fact of IE
accentuation. It covers more than any other solution so far however.

You say of *bHibHerti that "the ending consists of a consonant only
and so does not move the accent" but this rule still doesn't explain
anything. Why should the accent alternate at all, why should it matter
what the syllabic shape of the ending is, and why should there be so
many unintuitive paradigmatic accent patterns to choose from? This just
dusts off your responsibility to explain what we find in IE.

QAR addresses all that you ignore. Accent shifts in this language would
be based on syllable number from the end, that is, only if the
proterodynamic and hysterodynamic could somehow be unified. QAR and the
acknowledgement of the already proven Syncope in even _final_ positions
unifies both of these accent patterns and gives a simple reason for the
learned accentuation: an underlying _automatic_ quasi-penultimate accent
based only on syllable-number.

My QAR simply could not accomplish such a straightforward union of the
hystero- and proterodynamic paradigms unless this were based in reality.
The rule you give above is still ad hoc, unexplained and thus undesirable.


> The reduplicated present type is regularly *opposed* to an aorist
> of the underived type (root aorist), so an aorist is just about the
> last thing it would be.

No. For MIE, I'm thinking more like a reduplicated aorist *bebér-a
(> *bHibHérti), a simple aorist *béres-a (> *bHe:rst) and a durative
*bér-e-ta (> *bHéreti). I wasn't saying that the first 2 forms would've
meant the same thing. I was just saying that they probably inhabited
the same aspect at one time. The former would emphasize doing something
repeatedly or habitually while the latter would simply be an action
regardless of how many times, if at all, one did it. For example, I
could see *beresa being used in simple prohibitive statements like
*/meh tam béresa/ "Don't carry that" whereas */meh tam bebéra/ "Don't
keep carrying that all the time".


> The word at hand would then mean "keep on bringing", "bringing ever
> more ...".

Yes, then we are in alignment on the use of the aorist.


In reaction to my MIE forms, Jens:
> That should be *CéC-/*CC-´, present *Ci-CéC-/*Cé-CC-. But the
> present could also be a nasal present or a y-present.

Yes, I know. So what?


> The athematic reduplicated structure is specifically NOT an aorist.

Speaking of multiple events of an action without any reference to a
clear point in time is indeed specifically aorist... Does "aorist"
not mean "without time" in the end?


> The root *deH3- just formed *déH3-m 'I gave'. Why the unmotivated
> fuss?

Everything about IE forces us to go through that fuss, Jens. IE simply
didn't always have zero-grading. This logically must derive from a
fuller preform. We have *t:ehWa-m by all the rules I've discovered and
it would be truely the only possible MIE form to explain later *dehWm.
The loss of *a is trivial but serves to explain _all_ instances of
syllabic nasals, not just here. Syncope shows that the accusative *-m
was once *-am and indeed we find the fuller forms outside of IE in Uralic
et al. We also know that alternations like *genh-/*gnh- show that indeed
syllabic nasals must be the product of Syncope.


= gLeN