[tied] Re: IE lexical accent

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 enlil@... wrote:

> 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.

Okay: In what sense is "(ante)penultimate" the formulation of something
regular? Why is there no vowel in the slot *d_w- (your "*t:w-") if there
is one in *H2_n- (your "*xan-")? Why is there no vowel in the position
i_s of the verbal root? In what sense is the antepenultimate accent in
*-éna-ta in keeping with the boasted principle that morphemic accent is
strictly penultimate?

More fundamentally, in what way is an analysis like this superior to one
that operates with far more stable forms of roots suffixes and
desinences prior to the working of the ablaut? Surely a derivation of
the first two examples from **H2nér-m, **H2ner-ós is simpler and
easier to control than one operating with different root vowels and even
different root length in the two. Likewise with the verbal forms: a
derivation from **dwéys-t, **dweys-ént is certainly simpler than one
that operates with dissimilar stems and longer endings than we find.
What happened to that sharp razor which could come in handy here to rid
us of some of the dead wood?

>
> 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 a direct analysis, the inflectional accent does not operate from the
end. It operates on the basis of the accent placing in the shorter
forms; from that place it moves toward the end. However, the lexical
accent, to the extent its position is not dictated by functional
oppositions (which it very often is), is itself predictable and simply
sits on the last vowel of the stem (which is very often, perhaps even
always, the only vowel). After the assignment of the lexical accent a
vowel is inserted in heavy stem-final clusters, and the new vowel takes
part in the accent movement caused by syllabic flexives. Another
possible formulation would be that prop-vowels are irrelevant for the
lexical accent, but matter for the inflectional accent.

By any standard this is simpler and has a greater explanatory power than
anything I have seen from you. If that is a wrong impression your own
conduct is probably the main reason for that clamity. For the time being
however I have no reason to believe it is anything but a very correct
impression.

> > 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.

The PD types *pér-tu-s, gen. *pr-téw-s, or *H1néH3-mn, *H1nH3-mén-s,
work fine. I do not use forms or inflections peculiar to myself,
certainly not here; what is the problem?

> 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".

The shift to the next syllable actually works quite regularly. One might
rather ask how much regularity there is in "penultimate or
antepenultimate". Is this spoken in defense of the free will?

> 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.

And where *is* that 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".

So your *transitivizing* *-eH2- changes 'sit down' to 'stand up'? Well
done.

Jens