[tied] Re: sum

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

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Also, one could do as follows:
> > > Take a root
> > > *ber-
> > > add irreal -s-
> > > *ber-s-
> > > inflect semi-thematically
> > > bher-s-óm
> > > bhér-s-s
> > > bhér-s-t
> > > (I think I'll leave out the plural)
> > >
> > > Voilà, sigmatic aorist.
> >
> > Perhaps Jens' rule should be extended to:
> > stressed -ó- before voiced sound
> > unstressed -e- or nothing before unvoiced sound _and in open
> > syllable_ (ie. before syllable boundary)
>
> You seem to be under the misconception that the thematic vowel

rule

> is sensitive to the accent. It is not. The alternation is the same
> in *´-o-m, *´-e-s, *´-e-t, *´-o-me, *´-e-te, *´-o-nt (and the
> corresponding primary endings) and in *-ó-m, *-é-s, *-e-t, *-ó-me,

*-

> é-te, *-ó-nt (and primary variants).

That's because the 'thematic' paradigm is derived from the 'semi-
thematic' paradigm withexactly the purpose of getting rid of the
mobile accent.

An imperfect paradigm
*h1é-bhe-rom
*h1é-bhor-s
*h1e-bhor-t

*h1é-bhe-romV
*h1é-bhor-tV
*h1é-bhe-ront

does not sound as nice as

*h1é-bhe-rom
*h1é-bhe-res
*h1e-bhe-ret

*h1é-bhe-romV
*h1é-bhe-retV
*h1é-bhe-ront

Voilà, imperfect.



This has nothing to do with the

> accent-governed e/o alternation of *p&2-tér-es 'fathers' : *swé-

sor-

> es 'sisters'.

No, because it's been generalised.

>
> >
> > In Danish we have
> > Amérika /ämé?Rikä/
> > and
> > amerikansk /ameRikä´n?sk/ (where ä is a fronted /a/, not an /æ/)
> > That's because the syllables before the stress have the

structure

> > -VC(C)-, under and after the stress -C(C)V-.
> > So it's
> > /ä-mé?-Ri-kä/
> > and
> > /am-eR-i-kánsk/ > /am-O-i-kánsk/
> >
> > With Jens' rule, such a syllable behaviour would create havoc

with

> > the ablaut vowels.
>
> I don't see the relevance, nor do I see it is true for the Danish
> examples you use. Syllable division is an interpretation, never a
> fact. And the ablaut rules apply to a different language anyway.

Anyway, that's how I interpret my syllable division. The thing I
found interesting is the long-range effect of stress movement on
vowel quality: /a/ and /ä/ shift back and forth as you move stress
several syllabeles away. As I recall, there was a discussion of it
while I studied linguistics. There are very similar phenomena in
English with /ä/ and /æI/, Chomsky and Jackendoff wrtite volumes
about it in the good old days when linguistyics was all about
English.

> > pre-PIE
> > nom.,gen.sg. padáz
> > acc.,gen.pl. padám
>
> What funny and inconsistent double functions are these? What
> indicates that this was ever so?
>

That's Hittite -as- and -an-. We've discussed it on cybalist.
I have this idea that the finite verb with secondary active endings
is a verbal noun with demonstratives (-m "at me", -s "at him" -t "at
it"). Since it's a verbal noun, therefore a noun, it's constructed
with a subjective genitive (in -áz) and, when required, an objective
genitive (in -ám).

> > diversification for syntactic reasons
> > nom. pádz, gen.sg. padáz
> > acc. pádm, gen.pl. padám
>
> Why would a change in accent bring about these functional splits?

As the verbal noun becomes seen as a finite verb, the language
needs 'proper' genitives for 'real' nous. So it's the other way
around, the functional need brings about the splits.

> > >
> > nom. pá: , gen.sg. padáz
> > acc. pádm, gen.pl. padám
> >
> > Jens' rule:
> > nom. pe:, gen.sg. pedóz
> > acc. podm, gen.pl. pedóm
>
> So the /o/ of Gk. póda and Arm. otn (and Skt. pá:dam by Brugmann's
> law) is due to the voicing of the /d/, huh?

Yup. I am very proud of myself,

>And the /e/ of *H2nér-
> m., Gk. anéra, Ved. náram?

Gk gen. andrós. Basque 'andere' "young woman" with a cognate in
Celtic, but note Latinised Aquitanian (a relative of Basque) names:
Andera, Androssus. Some bring Gr. ánthropos (anthr-op- ?) into the
equation but it won't fit (Hubschmid: there exists a Mediterranean
suffix in -p-). So much for the IE-ness of that.

>And the /o/ of *wókW-m. 'voice', Avest.
> va:cim, Toch.AB wak, wek?

Where did the labialisation go? Note Gk. epos. *wekW- > *wok- vs
*we-kWV ?



Why is there -o- in Gk. kló:ps 'thief',

> and why -e- in phré:n, phréna?

Should I add 'labial' to the list of o-makers?

>
> >
> > Sanskrit-speakers try to fix it:
> > nom. pe:t, gen.sg. pedóz
> > acc. podm, gen.pl. pedóm
> > (because -d- is still not allowed after -e-)
> >
> > Latin-speakers try to fix it:
> > nom. pe:s, gen.sg. pedóz
> > acc. podm, gen.pl. pedóm
> > (because -d- is still not allowed after -e-)
> >
> > So, now I got past the possible criticism that acc. -Vm is not
> > stressed.
>
> Perhaps you fixed it, but apparently it just wasn't broke.
>

You broke it. You split the ablaut vowel in two.


Torsten