Re: sum

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

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> wrote:
>
> > I believe the compound of them in Hittite is -i-s^k-. Where's

the

> > -e? If so, -sk^é- and -yé- are post-PIH, PIE. That's late PIE

(and

> > BTW by 'late' I always mean 'late PIE').
>
> Again, I don't quite understand. What does "them" refer to? Your
> question "Where's the -e?" is strange. The -e- follows after -sk-,
> so does the *-o-: Oettinger gives the Hittite endings of sk-verbs
> like this: -skami, -skesi, -skezzi, -skaweni, -skette/ani, -

skanzi.

> That fits the other branches exactly.
>
> >
> > > > > 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 would there have been an *-e-? Because we see it. All
> branches
> > > reflect it. In my estime you make it absurd by not wanting to
> have
> > > it in the protolanguage.
> >
> > Why would there have been a zero-grade in the semi-thematic
> > inflection? Because we see it. Etc etc
>
> There is only *one* such relevant form, viz. sum.

I just robbed the phrase-book shelf at the local library. Serbo-
Croat 'som'. Czech 'jsem'. And that Slavic Macedonian form 'som' you
mentioned had to come from 'jesmi' since it's later. Ahem. Why?
Bulgarians and Macedonian were the underdogs of their society;
the 'som' could have been retained in 'lower' usage.

>There is of course
> zero-grade in sumus and sunt anyway, since also athematic verbs
> (which I am sure this one was) have zero-grade here: Ved. smás,
> sánti like imás, yánti 'go'.

I am glad you are sure of that, because I am not. Your first
explanation was that the 'sum' paradigm had borrowed its form from
the semi-thematic one of the type of bero:. Do you think it is
hiding its true athematic nature behind a false front of semi-
thematicness?

>The question is then if we are to
> reinterpret the story of all other IE verbs after the problem we
> sense with sum. I find this ill advised.

I'm the insensitive type. I'm afraid.

> > And what about the *-e- > *-a- of the feminine and the
> > > > > collective which is not *-o-? Is that a later
> > > addition/insertion?
> > > >
> >
> > As in collective = feminine? Is that part of anatolian?
>
> You don't seem to understand the question. If thematic *-e- is

post-

> PIE, then how did it happen that *néwos *néwom took to shaping a
> feminine/collective with the structure *néw-e-H2 > *néwaH2 ? Was

it

> **néw-H2 before that time?

*newx- sounds about right.

>And why did introduction of a stem which
> could be known only as *néwo- not yield *néw-o-H2 > **néwo:, but
> *néweH2 > *néwaH2 > néwa: ??

Not if it was formed at a time (late PIE) where the only prop-vowel
was -e-, as I claim.

> Bringing in Anatolian seems nonsensical to me if the problem is in
> Latin. Surely that is not helped by just hoping that *néwaH2 is a
> post-separation extra-Anatolian innovation.

I wasn't aware of whether you meant -ax the collective ending or -ax-
the factitive verb suffix; but they're of course the same.


You cannot make *H1ésmi

> that, for (1) sum is not Anatolian, and (2) esmi is Hittite.

Of course I can.
a) Anybody could or would construct *h1és-mi from *hes-si etc
sevaral languages far from each other. Did the natives decide at
language conferences that Pidgin English should have no inflectio
for person or number? But how did they then arrive at the same
result?
b) There might easily have been groups of PIE speakers using the
proper semi-thematic paradigm for sum and slaves etc using the
simplified h1es-mi paradigm.

> >
> >
> > > > > 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)
> > >
> > > Then why was it not *tos if the only thematic vowel shape of

PIE

> > age
> > > is *-o-? Or from the other angle, if you arbitrarily write

schwa

> > > insted of the thematic e's, why are the later e's of the
> thematic
> > > conjugation not old schwas, i.e. e's??
> >
> > Sorry, I misinterpreted my own improved Jens' rule. It's *te-syo
> > with the stem vowel in an open syllable. Therefore -e- .
> > Cf. *dom- "master" but des-pote:s where it lost its -m- and the
> stem
> > vowel is before am unvoiced sound.
>
> What is "improved" here? Thematic e/o is not sensitive to
> open/closed in terms of syllable structure which seems to be what
> you're saying.

That's what I'm saying.

>If I read that correctly you are taking arbitrary
> clutching for straws to new heights.

Let's hope they don't snap.

>On top of this, how can one
> call the first syllable of *tesyo _open_ except arbitrarily?

It is arbitrary. If it's wrong, it will be easy to disprove.

> The loss of the nasal is specifically Greek here: Avest. d&:n.g
> paitis^, Ved. dámpati-, pátir dán.
>

And no -e- there.

> >
> > >
> > > I can't see there can be any doubt that thematic -e- and
> thematic -
> > o-
> > > both existed in the protolanguage. Therefore they both have a
> pre-
> > > PIE origin.
> >
> > Non sequitur. One might have a pre-PIE origin, the other

originate

> > in the PIE period.
>
> What does "in the PIE period mean" if not at such a time that its
> results are present in the IE protolanguage?

I think we are talking PIE existence as static or punctual here. You
see it as existing at a give time, I as existing at a given period.

>Then that is also pre-
> PIE. The two events can be simultaneous or not, we wouldn't know.

Well, I claimed they were not simultaneous and tried to look at
whether the consequence would take us further.

> There may be more than two events; one could be a further
> development of the other, we just couldn't tell.

What we can do is make models of such sequences of events and see if
they run into difficulties.

>What is important
> and really sequitur is that none of the alternants can be credibly
> ascribed to post-PIE innovations taking place in the individual
> branches after they have left the unity.

That's why I never claimed that.

>The correspondences are
> just too close for that. Your idea about sum demands [that?], so I

take it

> that that was not such a good idea.

No, it doesn't.

>
> > >Therefore, there is no
> > > chronological problem to solve, because the thematic vowel
> > > alternation only applies to a specific position on the words
> where
> > > the other rules do not operate. That fact is in itself so far
> from
> > > being trivial that it cannot possibly have been brought about

by

> > > independent innovations in ten IE branches.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, and that is a problem. You have increased the entia by
> > splitting one into two: voicedness-dependent ablaut and ordinary
> > ablaut. I'm trying to move the boundary of dependent ablaut into
> the
> > territory of the independent one. That does not multiply the
> number
> > of entia; Occam would be pleased with me and not with you (the
> other
> > merits of your proposals untold).
>
> Why is it that Occam can never be shown to have done anything

good?

> I am not multiplying anything, for it is a *fact* that the voice-
> governed e/o alternation only occurs in stem-final position, as is
> the truth that all vowels appearing in stem-final position

exhbibit

> that alternation. Does Occam bid us to disregard the descriptive
> facts? Am I the only one who knows where the thematic vowels stand?

You _are_ making two phenomena out of one, and there is excellent
reason for it, and I believe you.


Torsten