Re: IE Thematic Vowel Rule

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Rob" <magwich78@...> wrote:

>
> Of course I can see that, on the surface, stem-final vowels seem

to

> be different from the other vowels of the language. What I'm
> wondering is whether appearances are deceiving here. My

inclination

> thus far is that they are.

Well, this may be a matter of different goals. I will give priority
any day to an account that manages to accept the material as is. If
we always declare appearances deceitful we get so much leeway that
no rigour will be left.

>
> You correctly point out that the alternations in stem-final vowels
> appear to operate independently of accent. Alongside this there

is

> the alternation of stressed and full-grade vs. unstressed and zero-
> grade or o-grade. These processes do not seem to affect
> the "thematic vowels".

We agree up to here.

> To me, that means the "thematic vowels" were
> recent within IE and/or were stressed to begin with.

I conclude the opposite on the same basis. If the special rules that
*do* apply to the thematic vowels were of recent date they should
apply also to the other vowels of the language. Why do they not do
that in your opinion?

> Coupled with
> these things are the indications that, by the time of latest IE,

the

> earlier accent patterns were no longer being followed.

Sure, that's right.

> One can see
> that most of the transparent (i.e. recent) compounds in IE had
> recessive accent.

What are you talking about?

> Furthermore, zero-grade syllables could obviously
> carry accent in latest IE: witness *wl'kWos 'wolf' and
> *septm' 'seven'.

Yes, relevance?

> All this seems to me like evidence of the accent
> weakening from one of stress to one of pitch.

Why so?

> Looking at the o-stem masculine nouns, we have the following:
>
> Nom. sg. *-os pl. *-o:s
> Acc. sg. *-om pl. *-ons
> Gen. sg. *-osyo pl. *-o:m
> Dat. sg. *-o:i pl. *-o:is
> Abl. sg. *-o:d pl. *-o:is
> Ins. sg. *-o: pl. *-o:is
> Loc. sg. *-oi pl. *-oisu

What is this? The instr. is *-o-H1, and the Dat/Abl.pl is *-oy-bhyos.

>
> In my opinion, this can be traced back to an earlier scheme:
>
> Nom. sg. *-o-s pl. *-o-es
> Acc. sg. *-o-m pl. *-o-ns
> Gen. sg. *-o-s-yo pl. *-o-om
> Dat. sg. *-o-ei pl. *-o-eis
> Abl. sg. *-o-ed pl. *-o-eis
> Ins. sg. *-o-e? pl. *-o-eis
> Loc. sg. *-o-i pl. *-o-isu
>
> That is, there was a non-alternating stem vowel in *-o to which

the

> case endings were agglutinated. My source here is Sihler's New
> Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin (1995).

If you read that carefully you'll see he only takes *-o:is as the
old instrumental plural. The dat./abl. is not treated in his exposé,
but the Vedic form devébhyah. is given in the chart. Besides, it's
common knowledge.

> Looking at the o-stem neuter nouns, we have the following:
>
> Nom./Acc. sg. *-om pl. *-a: < *-ex
>
> The other cases are the same as for the masculines. Where you see

a

> common thematic vowel in both the singular and plural here, I see
> suppletion. In other words, I do not consider the vowel in *-ex

to

> have the same origin as that in *-om.

But the neuter pl. only has *-a: in *thematic* stems. That ought to
count for something.

> Looking at the a:-stem neuter nouns, we have the following:
>
> Nom. sg. *-a: pl. *-a:s
> Acc. sg. *-a:m pl. *-a:ns
> Gen. sg. *-a:s pl. *-a:om
> Dat. sg. *-a:i pl. *-a:is
> Abl. sg. *-a:d pl. *-a:is
> Ins. sg. *-a: pl. *-a:is
> Loc. sg. *-a:i pl. *-a:isu

Why do you call them neuter? Do you mean feminine?

Here too some cases are strange: The dat.pl was *-aH2-bhyos (would
be *-a:bhyos in your notation), the instr.pl. was *-aH2-bhis (*-
a:bhis), and the loc.pl. was *-aH2-su (*-a:su); there was no i-
diphthong in these endings.

> Again, this looks like it can be traced to an earlier scheme, with

*-

> a: < *-ex:
>
> Nom. sg. *-ex pl. *-ex-es
> Acc. sg. *-ex-m pl. *-ex-ns
> Gen. sg. *-ex-s pl. *-ex-om
> Dat. sg. *-ex-ei pl. *-ex-eis
> Abl. sg. *-ex-ed pl. *-ex-eis
> Ins. sg. *-ex-e? pl. *-ex-eis
> Loc. sg. *-ex-i pl. *-ex-isu

That is just plain wrong.

>
> The obvious conclusion here is that there was a stem-formant *-ex

to

> which the case endings were agglutinated. It also seems that this
> formant is identical to the neuter plural ending *-ex.

Sure, the stem was *-e-H2, and the endings followed, just as with
other derivative stems.

> Finally, I think the common element in all of these endings is

that

> the stem-formant was originally *stressed*. That's probably what
> your "special articulatory prominence" is. Non-alternating stress
> means non-alternating stressed vowel. Thus these stem-formants

were

> spared the metaphorical ravages of zero-grading (if that process

was

> still productive when the stem-formants came to be used).

Well, the problem was: Why does the thematic vowel not vary with a
varying accent? You just say there is no varying accent. But there
is, so the problem remains.

> A question remains of why the vocalism in the o-stems is
> regularly /o/ *and* stressed, when the usual pattern is stressed
> and /e/ vs. unstressed and /ø/ or /o/. My tentative answer is

that

> stressed /o/ comes from earlier stressed /a:/.
>
> Looking at verbs, we seem to find a similar situation (imperfect
> active indicative is used here):
>
> 1sg *-om 1pl *-omes
> 2sg *-es 2pl *-etes
> 3sg *-et 3pl *-ont
>
> These endings obviously look like a combination of "theme vowel"

and

> personal ending. As you yourself have expertly pointed out, this
> theme vowel is identical to the subjunctive suffix. Furthermore,

we

> more or less agree that the thematic forms came from earlier
> subjunctives. Okay, so what causes the alternations in the

vocalism

> of the suffix, then? It seems to me that, again, the 1sg and 3pl

o-

> vocalism can be explained by rounding (and consequently backing)

in

> the presence of a coda nasal (especially a labial one). In my
> opinion, the 1pl can be explained as being due to analogy with the
> 1sg. The e-vocalism elsewhere fits in with the usual pattern of
> stress and /e/, which means that this stem-formant, too, was

stressed

> to begin with.
>
> I don't expect you to agree with everything here (if anything at
> all!) and I'm not trying to persuade you that I'm necessarily

right.

> Rather, I'm just sharing my analyses with you so that you have a
> clearer picture of where I'm coming from.
>
> > > Furthermore, the fact that the "thematic vowel" alternations

are

> > > independent of the accent proves nothing to me, because it

seems

> > > clear from the known evidence that IE's accent system at the

time

> > > of its break-up was different from that which produced much

(if

> > > not most) of the phenomena we see in the language, most

notably

> > > the full-grade/zero-grade alternations and, by extension,

the

> > > syllabic resonants.
> >
> > That is nonsense. The effect of the accent on the distribution

of

> > full grade and zero grade is very transparent and immediately
> > obvious. Why would it only be the stem-final vowels that

have

> > failed to keep that old dependency transparent over time? You

are

> > staking everything on a coincidence.
>
> From the above, I hope you can see that the stem-final vowels also
> seem to fit in with the "old dependency". However, it seems that
> they were added after the accent ceased to be mobile (i.e.

additional

> syllables no longer attracted the stress).
>
> > > > > Put another way, there does not seem
> > > > > to be any conditioning phenomena that can separate
> > > > > the "thematic vowel" from the other alternating vowels

in

> > > > > IE. So, either your rule is true everywhere for the

general

> > > > > e/o vowel, or it is not.
> >
> > The thematic vowel rule is true for the thematic vowel

and

> > blatantly false if tentatively applied to other vowels.
>
> Nothing new, there.
>
> > I understand you just don't like the language, but sorry this

is

> > the way it presents itself.
>
> You misunderstand. It's not a question of liking or disliking the
> language. For me, it's a question of "What are the facts, and why
> are they the way they are?"

That is not at all the vein you are dealing with the problem in. You
realloy are disqualifying the facts as if you won't have them.

>
> > > > > One example will suffice to disprove it: *(xW)

ré:gs 'king',

> > > > > which under your rule would have been *(xW)ró:gs.
> >
> > No, there is no thematic vowel in that. It refutes *your* stance.
>
> My stance is not one where your rule applies everywhere in IE. We

do

> agree that to posit such a rule for the entirety of the language
> would not hold, because the facts say otherwise. My point was, in
> the absence of any conditioning factors, a phonetic rule that

effects

> a given sound must do so wherever that sound exists in a

language.

And what will you do when you come across a language where special
rules are observed to apply to stem-final vowels and other rules to
vowels in other positions? Deny the existence of the facts? That IS
what you are doing. I refuse to follow.

> So, as you said before, the question is whether there were any
> conditioning factors over the thematic vowel. Again, my tentative
> answer is that there don't seem to have been any that could

satisfy

> your proposed rule.
>
> > > Again, "except for the thematic vowel" implies that there

was

> > > some kind of conditioning factor over the thematic

vowel.

> > > However, there does not seem to be one.
> >
> > There must have been, and you could be more helpful if you

joined

> > the search for its nature instead of just shouting noise to

deny

> > the facts.
>
> All I will say to this is that there is no reason to get personal
> here.

But you are again "just shouting noise to deny the facts". That's
not personal: nobody should do that.

> > > I am fully aware that there is no ban on /e/ + voiced segment

in

> > > IE. My point was, given that and the apparent lack of

any

> > > conditioning factor over the thematic vowel, your hypothesis

does

> > > not seem to be correct.
> >
> > But if the /e/ *is* the thematic vowel, there *is* a ban on /e/

+

> > voiced segment. May that fact not be even addressed?
>
> I would not really consider it a fact, as my analyses seem to
> indicate that there was not just one "thematic vowel". In other
> words, we are both taking the facts and making inferences from

them.

> Our inferences here happen to be different. The question is whose
> are more correct, not who is looking at the facts and who is

dreaming

> things.
>
>
> > > With all due respect, what do you think we are talking about
> > > here? I, for one, am not trying to distort the evidence

into

> > > something it is not. Nor do I consider this to be an area

where

> > > it is okay to talk about how things "should (have) be(en)".

So I

> > > would appreciate it if you would not imply otherwise.
> >
> > But you constantly refuse to accept what the language shows.
>
> Wrong, Jens. I often (but not always) do not accept your

inferences

> about what the language shows. The ones that I do not accept are
> those that I find untenable. We are not arguing over facts here;

we

> are arguing over explanations for the facts.

But do you not refuse to accept that the special behaviour displayed
by the thematic vowel is ONLY seen in stem-final position? If not,
where did you take that fact into account?

>
> > [snip]
> >
> > > True, but there's also the question of accent change and

whether

> > > it happened during the development of IE. I think it did.
> >
> > But *consistently* so that a thematic vowel is never found to
> > alternate with zero in dependency of the accent? Why is this

honour

> > peculiar to the thematic vowel?
>
> It seems readily apparent to me that the zero-grading process did

not

> operate throughout the history of IE. What's interesting is that

the

> forms in IE with the fullest vocalism also seem to be the most
> recent. (An example here is *pélekus 'axe', which is probably a
> loanword.) Now, from what I understand, apocope and syncope are

far

> more likely with stress-accent than with pitch-accent. Given

this, I

> have concluded that, by the end of IE, the language had pitch-

accent,

> not stress-accent.
>
> > You are simply giving up on the facts and just dreaming up

some

> > others that will suit you, in blatant contrast to your

proclaimed

> > ideals.
>
> Why would I do that? How could I benefit from doing such a

thing? I

> can't think of any answer here; can you?

Hypocrits act that way.

> In other words, you are again mistaken about me.

Only if you are not the hipocrit I have taken you for.

> > > True, but it did not have to start out that way. I keep

seeing

> > > connections between the 1sg, if indeed from *-ó-x or *-óx,

and

> > > the 1sg middle and perfect endings.
> >
> > But this is the 1sg active, primary ending, of thematic stems,

and

> > only that. Why would that be specially connected with either the
> > middle voice or the perfect?
>
> It is "only that" in the language traditionally reconstructed by

IE

> linguists, and which must be what the language looked like at its
> very end. We are trying to dig deeper than that.
>
> To answer your question, I can say that it is not uncommon in
> languages for non-active forms to develop into active forms. This
> process occurred in many early IE descendants, notably Latin and
> Greek. Perhaps it is not unreasonable to posit that the parent
> language itself underwent a similar process.
>
> Then again, the *-o: 1sg ending may be the result of sandhi, as

you

> seem to suggest.
>
> > > > It is prs. *bhéro:, inj. *bhérom. Clearly *bhéro: occupies
> > > > the position where one would have expected to see **bhéromi.
> > > > Cowgill toyed with the idea that it represents the direct
> > > > phonetic development from some such preform, and I tend

to

> > > > agree.
> > >
> > > What do you think the phonological processes looked like?

That

> > > is, how do you think **bhéromi became *bhéro:?
> >
> > Much like expected *-oy-bhis ended up being *-ooys in the
> > instrumental plural of o-stems.
>
> Well, how did that happen? What were the phonetic developments?
>
> > > > That the account does not add up. Is that not a problem?
> > >
> > > Explain, please.
> >
> > We are running around in circles. I did explain that, and you

said

> > it was a good point. You then say you have no problem with a

wrong

> > verbal voice, but that just casts doubt over your scholarly

ideals.

>
> Latin _sequo:r_ is translated into English as "I follow" -- that

is,

> with an *active* voice in English, although the verb is
> morphologically *passive* in Latin. If I understand you

correctly,

> you seem to be saying that the morphologically passive verbs with
> active semantics in Latin are impossible. Obviously they are not.

Where did I say that? Latin sequor is not opposed to a passive, IE *-
o: is the active opposed to a middle which is *-aH2i. Why would *-o:
then be an old middle-voice form? With the wrong colour of the
thematic vowel, and without the primary marker?

> I was hoping that you would explain what exactly you meant by "the
> account does not add up".
>
> > > With all due respect, how is the evidence being disqualified

here?

> >
> > By being taken to be misleading. If you consider the evidence
> > misleading, you get leeway. If you do that a lot, you get so

much

> > that nothing will have any probative value; that is where you

stand

> > now, and that is what I take pains to avoid. I am sure

some

> > evidence is misledaing in the sense that it has changed before

we

> > got to see it, but if there is not a core of regularity there is

no

> > probative value.
>
> So if you think the evidence leads somewhere and I think it leads
> somewhere else, you are necessarily right and I am necessarily
> wrong? I do not want to play that game.
>
> It seems to me that we are discussing where the evidence leads, so
> there is no way to say how it can be taken to be *misleading*.

But you are the one constantly disqualifying very clear evidence
just because you would rather like it to be different. You say
appearances are deceitful.

> > > The possibility of connections between 1sg prs.

act. "thematic" *-

> > > o: if from *-ox, the 1sg prs. mid. *-x-o-i (vel sim.), and

the

> > > 1sg prf. *-x-e notwithstanding?
> >
> > We actually have it combined with the thematic vowel in the

middle

> > voice which is *-a-H2-i, secondary ending *-a-H2.
>
> Where does the *-a come from?

That is the thematic vowel *-e-, here coloured to *-a- by the
contiguous *H2.

> > I cannot imagine what system could contain also active *-o-

H2,

> > secondary *-o-m. Why would the primary active have the same form

as

> > the secondary middle except for a difference in selection

of

> > thematic-vowel variant, which is then prim.act. *-o-H2, sec.mid.

*-

> > e-H2 ? If it could be proved to exist it would be another

matter,

> > then I would accept the facts and get cracking at a way

to

> > integrate them into a wider picture, but I do not depart from

self-

> > chosen silliness.
>
> Unfortunately I cannot say anything of consequence to this yet,

but I

> will look deeper into the matter.

I can wait.

Jens