Jens:
> In *H2nér-m, *H2nr-ós, the accent moves to the following vowel by any
> standard; [...]
> in *H1dónt-s, *H1dnt-ós, as in *dwéys-ti, *dwis-énti, it does not move
> to **-nét-, **-yés-, [...]
Yes but what are you talking about?? QAR predicts this! I've told you
already:
IE late MIE
*xnerm < *xan(h)éra-m (penultimate)
*xnros < *xan(h)ar-ása (penultimate)
*dweis-ti < *t:wéisa-ta (antepenultimate)
*dwis-énti < *t:wais-éna-ta (antepenultimate)
The word accent is ALWAYS (ante)penultimate while morphemic accent is
strictly penultimate.
There is no "vowel skipping". This has little to do with contiguous
syllables; it has to do with _syllable count from the end_, pure and
simple. Your theory is the one that goes haywire when it takes into
account the _full_ effects of Syncope.
> In all of these examples we find the accent moved to the next vowel
> if we do not put any more in to confuse the picture.
The fact that you can't account for *ANY* proterodynamic stems based
on this statement shows me that you don't know what you're talking about.
In those cases, "skipping" actually DOES occur.
Clearly, your statement is false, your conclusions deluded. There is
no such rule because it can't account for an entire paradigm type
without modifying your faux-pas!
So please smell the coffee, Jens. The rule needs to be revised to
explain the _broader_ pattern. This can only be done when we acknowledge
that there was loss of MIE *a in ALL positions, including finally. The
rule is not "accent is placed on the next syllable". The pattern is
"accent is placed regularly on the penultimate or antepenultimate of the
MIE form".
With this rule, we explain a much wider array of accent patterns in IE.
The only things left then are amphidynamic (a hot debate and a relatively
minor type) and acrostatic (obviously a regularized accent pattern used
afterwards).
> If we do, we get unpredictable degrees of skipping.
You are clearly the one with this problem.
> Work to show what? What do you get if you add the same spurious suffix
> to *legh- 'lie down'? A word meaning 'stand out of bed'??
No, it would be "to lay something down", a transitive as always. If the
word *stex- is really *sd-ex-, then the meaning would be more like "to
stand (something) up". Naturally, in a mediopassive sense, *stex- would
come to mean "to stand onself up". The suffix *-ex- exists elsewhere and
is attached to other well-known verbs. Hardly spurious when *mn-ex- is
a clear example of it and blatantly derived from *men- "to think".
= gLeN