[tied] Re: Monovocalism: sequel

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

> Jens:
> > 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
>
> No. This is what I used to think until I realized that only

unaccented

> *a disappears, while unaccented *e remains in early Late IE as *a
> (which later goes on to become alternating *e/*o). This takes care

of

> a lot of things that would otherwise be called "violations" if your
> belief were true, such as all thematic verb stems!
>
>
> > I have suggested the solution that the vowel of *-es is a post-

ablaut

> > epenthesis (vowel insertion),
>
> Epenthesis without motivation. This is not a valid solution. The

vowel

> *e is there to disambiguate it from any singular forms, that's it.

The two would not even be identical without the vowel of *-es, so
that cannot be "it". And by any honest evaluation it is an irregular
point in your account and therefore a distinct weakness. I manage to
unite form and function in the nom.pl. of all types.

> > 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-;
>
> Contradiction: accusative *xék-mon-m, not **xék-men-m

The acc.sg. is analogical (for expected "*xék-mn-m" actually) in my
explanation which is admittedly a weakness. When you invoke analogy
it does not seem to bother you much. You even have *rules* of an
analogical nature. My rules makes me expect Avestan thri-sat&m and
Old Persian pa(n)thim which are indeed found. How can -sat&m be the
accusative of -saNs, if not by my set of rules?

> > *pó:d-s has lenghtening of an *-e:- already long;
>
> Contradictions:
> accusative *pod-m, not **pe:d-m
> plural *pod-es, not **pe:d-es

The nom.pl. is fully regular by my account. The acc.sg. has to be
explained by analogy in my theory, which is admittedly a weakness.
But it is the same one again, not a new count in the indictment.

> Look, Jens, I'm not even going to go further. Your solution isn't
> explaining any of the commonmost patterns here which is why I can't
> take it seriously. You need to then make up a new reason as to why
> we don't find the vowels where you say we should find them. Why

bother?

> You say I'm the king of analogy but it looks to me that your entire
> explanation here is a large bag of analogies.

I need analogy only for the acc.sg., and only for the standardized
form, not for the vestiges of the regular form.

> My solution does away with this crap. In eLIE after Syncope, we

have

> *pad- "foot" with the following declension that's already much more
> regular:
>
> nom *pa:d-s *pád-es
> acc *pád-m *pád-ms
> gen *pad-ás *pad-ám
>
> We still see Szemerenyi Lengthening in the nominative, which is

what

> we expect to find because of the clipping of the nominative ending

*-sa

> during Syncope. There is no vowel alternation between *o and *e

yet,

> since this later comes from the pretonic raising of unaccented *a -

- In

> closed syllables we get *e while in open syllables we find *i.

You said that "only unaccented *a disappears, while unaccented *e
remains in early Late IE as *a (which later goes on to become
alternating *e/*o)". Then why is the vowel of the genitives not
lost? You quote the stem as *pad-. If it was "unaccented *e" on its
way to "alternating *e/*o" which is *o before something voiced, how
can there then be a stem alternant *ped- as in Latin? Your
formulation makes one expect -i-, by the way. Why that funny
statement? Typo for *o?

> Likewise we can see that *xekmo:n- is from an earlier, much more
> sensible eLIE paradigm:
>
> nom *xékma:n-s *xékman-es
> acc *xékman-m *xékman-ms
> gen *xekmén-as *xekmén-am
>
> Again, lengthening causes *a: in the nominative due to clipping,
> producing later *o:, while the unaccented short *a becomes *o

before

> voiced *n in the nominative and accusative. In the weak cases,

accent

> predictably shifts to the next syllable and replaces unaccented *a

with

> accented *e according to normal ablaut rules at that time.

If "the unaccented short *a becomes *o before voiced *n" is meant to
reflect a rule restricted to the position before voice, why does it
also work for *´-yos-m, *´-yos-es of comparatives? Vedic nápa:tam,
nápa:tas also points to *népot-m., népot-es. I see no correlation
with voicing outside of thematic stems. Where do you see it?

> Notice how this explains things without mess AND I don't need to

perform

> double-lengthening voodoo either. This proto-language prestage in

fact

> is wonderfully normal.

Why are specific solutions a priori discredited as undesirable? Is
this not supposed to be based on empiry?

You are not addressing the accent mobility which is crucial here.

Jens