[tied] Re: sum

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> wrote:
>
> > There is nothing in Jens' rule that requires it to take
> > place in one stage. It might as well be the result of the
> > application of two rules at different stages.
>
> I guess that is correct. But it is hard to see that your sceneario
> offers any advantages. You are in effect saying that, by the
> splitting-up of PIE, the thematic vowel -o- did not yet exist. It
> was only so many later and independent events of normalization,
> implemented by generalization of the vowel in stem-final position
> that caused the vowel to appear in the forms where we know it as
>-e-.
>
> If this is a fair report of your position (which I am not sure for
> it changes all the time), there are some grave problems here
> already:

Actually the other way around. The -o- came first. The -e- of the
thematic vowel did not yet exist but was added later, is what I'd
have to say.


My problem is that since I'm no pro, I don't have enough information
on basics and therefore I have to make do with throwing half-baked
ideas into the air for the pros to shoot down or improve, as the
case might be.

>
> 1. Are the e-forms also secondary in the categories in which the
> thematic vowel is accented? It certainly is in verbs in *-sk^é-ti
> and in denominatives in *-yé-ti. If so what were the forms like
> before the -e- was introduced?
>

I think I'd have to resort to claiming they were late forms.

> 2. Why would there not have been a thematic vowel in the forms -

and

> only in those forms - where the following desinential segment was
> voiceless?

Why would there have been an -e-? I have no answer, but your e/o
rule similarly has no answer. I don't think I make it less or more
explainable bt dividing it into two phases.


Why was there such a correlation? To my pleasant surprise

> the rule has been widely accepted on the list, but I have also

seen

> it being used as fuel for further analyses that make me regret I
> ever told about it.

Sorry about that.

> 3. The e/o rule also applies outside of the verb. Was there no

vowel

> in the vocative of o-stems in IE? Is the *-e of Lat. domine, Gk.
> ánthro:pe, Lith. vy´re, OSC boz^e, and Sanskrit déva a post-PIE
> addition? And what about the *-e- > *-a- of the feminine and the
> collective which is not *-o-? Is that a later addition/insertion?

I'll need a time-out on that.

> And if acc. *tó-m, *tó-d are fine old thematic forms, what was the
> vowel of the genitive *tésyo?

The genitive must once have been *tes. Or rather *t&s (I believe
Miguel has a solution of problen of PIE phonology by resurrecting
full vowels from schwa's)

> These embarrassing questions seem to me to be of a kind that
> completely destroys the idea of a post-PIE origin of thematic *-e-.
>

Or pre-PIE origin of thematic *-o-.

You may be right.



Torsten