From: elmeras2000
Message: 33492
Date: 2004-07-12
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:
For the sake of reference in what follows I need to copy a few lines:
[Glen, on my analysis of nom.pl. *-es:]
> > > Epenthesis without motivation. This is not a valid solution.
The
> > > vowel *e is there to disambiguate it from any singular forms,
that's
> > > it.
> In IE terms, we distinguish between *-os and *-es. The
> former is what we see in singular thematic nominatives, the latter
> in plural athematic nominatives. Had *-es been **-os, we'd have
> confusion between derived thematics and plural athematics. Had *-es
> been solely *-s, we'd again have large-scale confusion with the
> singular nominative in *-s.
>
> So, given what I know now of MIE, this all makes sense. The ending
> *-es in MIE was simply preserved to avoid confusion.
>
[Jens:]
> > And by any honest evaluation it is an irregular point in your
account
> > and therefore a distinct weakness.
[Glen:]
> You have the same weakness, if not a greater one, because you need
> to add a vowel (and why *e instead of *a or *o is anyone's guess)
and
> you provide no clear motivation for it.
[Jens:]
The potential confusion you regard as so important would be rather
small-scale. It would occur with stems in clusters only, as *nókWt-
s : *nókWt-es and participles in *-ont-s : *-ont-es (and the latter
even appears to have replaced regular *-o:n : *-on-es without the
merger).
What do you mean by "clear motivation"? The underlying form in *-s-s
(or *-z-c if the sibilants are to be kept distinct) I have posited
has a very explicit motivation which I have taken pains to spell out
every time I have mentioned the analysis: This would be the
nominative plural with a marking completely parallel with that of
the accusative plural in *-m-s (*-m-c in case the sibilant needs a
marking). The phonological account has also been made explicit every
time, and here it is again: The nominative marker causes lengthening
in both endings, so nom.sg. *´-en-z > *´-on-z and nom.pl. *´-en-z-c
> *´-on-z-c are changed in parallel fashion to Nsg *´-o:n-z, Npl *´-
o:n-zc, which means that during the time of loss of unaccented short
vowels these segments retain their vowels which are now long; since
stems in clusters shorten their suffix vowels again in the nom. (*´-
o:nt-s > *´-onts, *nó:kWt-s > *nókWt-s), the nom.pl. *´-o:n-zc is
shortened to *´-onzc. From this one would expect "*´-ons", but we
find *´-on-es; so what has happened? A vowel -e- has been inserted,
a plain observation free to be made by anyone. Could such vowel
insertion be phonetically regular? Sure, we apparently have no other
examples of *-C-zc (word-final sequence of a consonant + the
lengthening sibilant + another sibilant), so we have no particular
reason to disqualify what we find and can just accept it as the good
explorers we claim to be. If anything is well-motivated, this is.
In all other instances where there is reason to see a vowel
enfolding we find it as /e/, so this is quite well-motivated and
parallelled also. Why is the opposite being said about it?
It may also be pointed out that the phonetic difference between -C-
ss and -C-es is not very big: If the first part of the long sibilant
is reduced to a mere aspiration (giving something that could be
written -C-hs) that is already a voiceless vowel of e- or schwa-
timbre, so if voice is added as a natural feature of vowels we get
the vowel we have.
As opposed to this one may justly ask what motivation could underlie
the alternative to which this is now expected to give way: Why would
the nominative plural end originally in *-s, marking only the plural
and not the nominative? Why depart from a system Sg. *-s(NOM), *-m,
Pl. *-s(PLUR), *-s(PLUR)-m ? Is there a parallel showing that this
irregular system was in fact preferred by this particular language?
The aggressive orders demanding a clear motivation become
particularly embarassing when barked out in defence of something
that has none at all.
[Jens:]
> > I manage to unite form and function in the nom.pl. of all types.
[Glen:]
> As do I. You're not unique.
[Jens:]
You are, I hope. No, you do not manage to make your nom.pl. form a
nominative plural by structure. Your account does not add up.
[Jens:]
> > The acc.sg. is analogical (for expected "*xék-mn-m" actually)
[Glen:]
> Exactly. And I'm going to be punished for my use of analogy when
> you can't even explain a single paradigm without resorting to that
> tactic.
[Jens:]
I explain many paradigms without analogy, why is the opposite being
said now? I explain the oxytone paradigms completely without, and I
also explain the remaining vestiges of the regular treatment of
barytone paradigms without:
I. Accent on suffix:
Nom.sg. *-tér-s > *-té:r
acc.sg. *-tér-m > *-tér-m.
nom.pl. *-tér-ss > *-tér-es
II. Accent on root:
Nom.sg. *´-tor-s > *´-to:r
acc.sg. *´-tor-m > *´-tr-m -> *´-tor-m
nom.pl. *´-tor-ss > *´-tores
In II the acc.sg. is adjusted to the pattern of I, the vowel of the
acc.sg. being the same as in the nom.sg., only short, and the same
as in the nom.pl. The other forms are phonetically regular and so
constitute the basis on which the analogy works. This creates a
regular interplay of strong and weak stem forms throughout.
The expected vowel loss in the type-II acc.sg. is actually seen in
*trí-dk^-m.t-m. (Av. Tri-sat&m), the acc.sg. *trí-dk^-omt-s 'thirty'
(Av. nom. Tri-saNs). It is also seen in the acc. *pónt-oH2-m > PIE
*pónt-H2-m. surviving in Old Persian pa(n)Tim 'path'.
[Jens:]
> > When you invoke analogy it does not seem to bother you much.
[Glen:]
> Should I cry? Should I send you all pictures of my terrible dismay?
> What does that statement mean really? When I exhaust possibilities,
> I consider analogy.
[Jens:]
You should realize that your position completely annihilates your
aggressive objections to the use of analogy by others. I am sure
anybody trying to actually use your rules will be painfully aware of
this dilemma.
[Jens:]
> > 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.
[Glen:]
> You admit to a lot of weaknesses at this point. It's time to
consider
> another solution.
>
[Jens:]
> > I need analogy only for the acc.sg., and only for the
standardized
> > form, not for the vestiges of the regular form.
[Glen:]
> But why? If we can see that the lengthening of the nominative is
> caused by *-s itself, then the accusative is simply the same stem
as
> the nominative plus *-m.
[Jens:]
Yes, that's what I said.
[Glen:]
> Now, the kicker is that this can only make
> sense if *-s and *-m have the same syllabicity. And you know what
> that means, dontcha.
>
> Yes, that's right: *-s < MIE *-sa and *-m < MIE *-am.
[Jens:]
No, it may also mean *-s < *-s and *-m < *-m. Two vowelless
consonants also have the same number of syllables, viz. zero. Am I
missing a point Glen cannot make me understand, anyone?
[Glen:]
> In that way, by QAR, the strong cases are given antepenultimate
> accentuation for disyllabic stems. As I explained the rule, 2-
syllable
> stems can ONLY have accent on the first syllable of that stem (by
> way of penultimate stem accentuation). So the pattern is a quasi-
> penultimate throughout the strong cases and penultimate accent in
> the weak cases like the genitive.
[Jens:]
So strong cases accent the antepenult, weak cases the penult? Then
there is an accent movement in your theory also! Hey man, that's
tradition, the very thing everybody has been saying all the time,
back before 1900! Only of course you have added an extra vowel
across the board which you do not account for. Where tradition has
asyllabic endings leaving the accent be you have a vowel in the
endings; and where tradition has endings with a vowel in them
causing the accent to move you posit endings with two vowels. Now,
your monosyllabic endings just never show the vowel they allegedly
have. So it strikes one that the same regularity you achieve with an
opposition between one vowel and two can be achieved with a
difference between no vowel and one vowel. The funny choice of 1 vs.
2 instead of 0 : 1 now ought to be given a *very* good and
compelling motivation. I have seen none. It therefore seems that you
could easily modify your point of departure and your rule so as to
work with forms that are one syllable shorter than what you have
postulated. What you are positing has an amusing ring of irony about
it, coming from someone who has so often lectured the list about the
blessings of simplicity.
[Jens:]
> > 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?
[Glen:]
> Paradigmatic Resistance. We cannot have gen.**pd-os because we'd
have
> a ghastly asyllabic root in a paradigm. This is not feasible. A
> root MUST have at least one syllable in all paradigmatic forms.
[Jens:]
That did not keep speakers from using zero-grade in words with an
underlyingly short vowel, as *H2nér-m : gen. *H2nr-ós. Can anyone
explain to me what the good man means?
Many have said that *ped-ós is nothing but */pd-os/ with realization
of an [e] simply to avoid the impossible. But 'foot' is about the
only example this could be claimed for. There should be no obstacle
to zero-grade in "*n.kWt-ós" or "*dmH2-ós", but we find *nékWt-s,
*dém-s; why do these act so differently?
[Glen:]
> To be clear, _deriviational_ forms may allow asyllabicity in the
> root as in the classic example of *?d-ont- "tooth" where *ed- has
> been crushed by accent tides. To understand when PR applies, one
must
> evaluate whether the form is part of a larger system (declension)
or
> whether it forms a new stem on its own.
[Jens:]
Oh, we must ask you? Can anyone explain to me what this is supposed
to mean?
[Glen:]
> So because of PR, MIE's *a in this instance was _preserved_ as eLIE
> *a, contrary to Syncope. Note that this preservation is in
alignment
> with the development of plural *-es and is therefore somewhat of a
> 'regular irregularity'. Now, since eLIE unaccented *a is
phonetically
> schwa, it eventually rises pretonically to *e in closed syllable
> or *i in open syllable. Here, we get *e and therefore *pedos
without
> problems.
>
[Jens:]
> > [...] how can there then be a stem alternant *ped- as in Latin?
[Glen:]
> Derived from the genitive *pedos, of course, and *pedos is the
> result of *a in the root being preserved during Syncope.
>
[Jens:]
> > Your formulation makes one expect -i-, by the way.
[Glen:]
> No, because pretonic unaccented *a is not in an OPEN syllable like
it
> was in a initial thematic stem of a compound or in reduplicated
> presents like *ba-bér- (> *bHi-bHer-).
[Jens:]
But the first vowel of "*pad-ás" was precisely "pretonic unaccented
*a [...] in an OPEN syllable". Why do your rules not work? Have you
looked at the forms at all? Can anyone else explain to me what I
have missed if this does make sense in a way I just fail to see?
[Jens:]
> > 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?
[Glen:]
> For *nepot-, the eLIE form had accent on the second syllable,
derived
> from earlier MIE *nepáta. The accent has shifted to the initial.
The
> same is probably true for the comparative.
[Jens:]
Why would any of them do such a thing? What principle are you using
here? Please formulate the rule you invoke for this. Note that other
accounts have no problem here. You are actually making problems now
rather than solving some.
So you just dismiss the evidence: You know better - this is a rotten
language and you are here to put it right. Again, anyone, have I
missed a point the good man has been unable to convey to me?
You are explicitly separating the two types:
Nom.sg. *´-yo:s
acc.sg. *´-yos-m
nom.pl. *´-yos-es
which should have had suffixal -e- by your account, and
nom.sg. *´-mo:n
acc.sg. *´-mon-m
nom.pl. *´-mon-es
which is fine even according to your standards.
You are invoking the thematic vowel rule of e/o alternation for a
segment which nobody else identifies as a thematic vowel. Now do you
*ever* see that rule working for vowel segments in the position
where you are now using it? The -o- of *-mon- looks fine, but the *-
o- of *-yos- is rotten. Where is there an *-e-? The cases that *do*
exhibit the thematic vowel alternation are the thematic vowels which
are consistently located in stem-final position. And the segments
you are talking about all have the remarkable point in common that
they are unaccented. Why are these very consistent facts not used
here? Why introduce this confusion, and then still not achieve the
goal?
One of your vocalic doctrines has been given this wording by
yourself:
"-
> My solution as a result is that these thematic vowels were
> eLIE unstressed *a, in many cases derived from MIE *e. Only MIE
> unaccented *a gets deleted, not unaccented *e. The latter vowel is
> reduced instead to *a, just as the other vowel is annihilated. It's
> a kind of switcheroo, I guess.
-" (Glen in Message 1021 on the Nostratic-L list).
Is there anyone who finds this "look here, it's over there, and when
I say there I mean elsewhere" guidance insightful?
Jens