[tied] Re: Monovocalism: sequel

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:

> Yet, minimal pairs like *bHoros and *bHeros mentioned earlier

evidently

> disallow the same kind of phonemic reductions that apparently are

doable

> in Sanskrit. This is clearly because both *e and *o can occupy the

same

> position -- Ergo, they are two seperate vowels with seperate

histories

> that occasionally intertwine but not completely.

In my analysis the first -o- of *bhór-o-s is not an original vowel,
but the infixed sonant morpheme you like to ridicule. The accent of
*bhór-o-s 'act of carrying, transportation' is made in contrast with
*bhor-ó-s 'carrying, favourable' which is the old form. There is no
conflict with the structure of s-stems which have accented normal
grade, IE *g^énH1-os, *mén-os, etc.

> The true phonemic
> contrast of *e & *o despite ablaut is undeniable not only here but

even

> in the position occupied by the "thematic vowel" where we find both
> singular thematic forms in nominative *-o-s and plural athematic

forms in

> *-es. I'm aware of all your tactics to explain this away (phonemic

**z

> and o-infixing, ugh) but they are never ideas that can't just be

equally

> replaced with some other ad hoc theory. My solution has been to

accept

> what we see, so *-es < *-es and *-o-s < *-a-s -- They are

phonemically

> a minimal pair and yet still can have [-z] if you desire.

That leaves unexplained what I have managed to explain in a
recurrent and consistent way. Of course defeat is also an option.
Since *-os contains the thematic vowel, the seeming conflict is not
real, but the nom.pl. *-es does raise eyebrows, for unaccented short
vowels should be lost (unless they are stem-final in which case the
rules concerning the thematic vowel apply). I have suggested the
solution that the vowel of *-es is a post-ablaut epenthesis (vowel
insertion), which has enabled me to derive the form from a regular
preform marking both the nominative and the plural so that it
functions as what it is. My English in insufficient to give me the
full pleasure of the argument contained in the loanword ugh.

> So these facts completely distance IE from the situation shown for
> Sanskrit and the endless invocations of monovocalism just don't

cut it.

Sure the *distance* from underlying analysis to the surface forms is
longer for PIE than for Sanskrit which is such a pretty case. I see
your evaluation of it has changed in that direction and I agree of
course.

> If *o is "the conditioned variant" of *e based only on the thematic
> alternations where this certainly _is_ the case, then accent

cannot be

> the motivating factor of this conditioning based on what we find
> attested. Thematic stems, your immediate basis of all of this

afterall,

> have no such accent shifts that would explain it.

Correct, the timbre alternation of the thematic vowel is not
governed by accent. I don't think I ever said it was; I have known
for decades it isn't. My interpretation of other types of IE *o is
not "based only on the thematic alternations", in fact I regard them
as completely independent, and most of them (the other o's that is)
*are* accent-governed.

> What then is left as the trigger of the assumed conditioning? In

effect,

> nothing.

I have stated the conditioning of all types of IE o many times: The
thematic vowel is stem-final and pre-voice; *H2ák^-mo:n has
lengthening of an unaccented *-e-; *pó:d-s has lenghtening of an *-
e:- already long; *kWe-kWór-e has a dissimilatory treatment of
accented o with reduplication. There remains the infixal o which you
like to ridicule; I have stated the rules for that also. None of
this is in internal conflict, and nothing is unmotivated.

> We are holding onto an assumption that offers us no clear answer.
> This is where we have a simple binary choice.
>
> Option One is to continue a hopeless path and choose one of many

possible

> ad hoc solutions in order to ignore that your assertion cannot be
> attributed to _all_ instances of *o as the examples above

irrefutably

> show.

Nobody's rules can, these things just are not related.

> So thus starts the untempered imagination: Maybe the accent

shifted,

> maybe IE had four tones like Mandarin, maybe analogy played a

part. Maybe,

> maybe, maybe, maybe.

I have far less analogy in my explanations than you have been
serving the list. When you need it, it is good ol' analogy, and I am
portrayed as a fool if I don't buy it in every single case.

> Option Two is that in a sea of maybes, we accept what we see. We

see that

> two vowels are needed in these unavoidable examples. We must

accept that

> _fact_. We _cannot_ continue to put a random assumption before

evidence

> and dare call ourselves rational.

We must accept that some o's are not the same underlying element as
other vowels, yes. Some o's have showed that they are from an old
sonant prefix-turned-infix which you like to ridicule.

> Perhaps the rest of our debate should be given seperate threads.

Otherwise

> posts will continue to be long and disordered.

I just follow orders and comment on what I am served.

Jens