Re: IE Thematic Vowel Rule

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

> We are not arguing over reconstructed IE proper, but rather over

what

> the prestages of IE were like. To reconstruct these earlier and
> prestages of IE, it seems that one must rely largely on internal
> reconstruction, with comparison to other language families

believed

> to be related to IE filling a smaller role (but still useful).

Agreed. I believe the ablaut rules can be unraveled entirely on
internal evidence, though. Their results, however, lead on to even
deeper analyses that fit external evidence quite handsomely.

> > 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?

>
> Let me clarify: so far, I've concluded that the "thematic"
> declensions were more recent than the root-noun declension, at the
> very least. In all probability, there was a time where
> the "thematic" declensions and some "athematic stem" declensions

were

> productive.


>
> However, the "athematic" declensions, by and large, show the
> characteristic e-grade/zero-grade Ablaut alternations that seem to

be

> explained by alternations in stress. The "thematic" declensions

do

> not show such Ablaut. I conclude that the zero-grading processes
> *ceased to be productive* before the advent of the "thematic"
> declensions, i.e. that the language's stress became non-

alternating

> (in other words, fixed where it had been).

You are just repeating this over and over again. You are not
responding to my objections. The thematic type shows an interchange
of e and o depending on the phonetic nature of the following
segment. If that is such a young thing, and all other types of words
were in place in pre-PIE at that time, why in heaven's name were
none of the other word-types hit by the change that caused e to
become o before certain sounds? That is a lethal blow to your thesis
which stops right here.

> Now, as I've said before, I've seen a connection between
> the "athematic" genitive suffix *-ós and the "thematic masculine"
> declension. It seems that this connection can also explain the

lack

> of alternation in the stem-vowel of that declension, if it was
> considered (at the time of its formation) to be inherently

stressed.

> Furthermore, the *ó of the "thematic masculine" stem and
> the "athematic" genitive suffix seem to be a separate phoneme from
> the normal Ablautend vowel. There are some other cases

of "aberrant

> *ó" in IE, namely some demonstrative pronouns (e.g. *so, *to-).

I've

> tried to link these together as coming from earlier *á: (i.e.
> stressed /a:/) which itself may have come about from allophony of
> *á. In any case, if *á: existed (for I may very well be wrong and

it

> may have not), it seems to have acquired an o-timbre, but also to
> have remained *only phonetic* until qualitative Ablaut came about.

You don't need any of all that.

>
> So, in short, there appears to have been a complex interplay

between

> accent and vocalism in IE. At one point (the earliest), stress

was

> alternating, producing the e-grade/zero-grade quantitative Ablaut
> alternations. Afterwards, this process became nonproductive,
> resulting in the stress being "fixed" (i.e. non-alternating). It

was

> in the latter environment that the "thematic" declensions appear

to

> have been born.

How could a non-alternating vocalism change into a *voice-governed*
alternation e/o, and only in stem-final position at that? Again, you
are not considering the facts you need to account for.

>
> > [snip]
> >
> > > One can see that most of the transparent (i.e. recent)

compounds

> > > in IE had recessive accent.
> >
> > What are you talking about?
>
> Most of the compounds we see in the daughter languages, where we

can

> easily break them down into their components, seem to have had
> initial accent in origin. In languages like Greek, later accent
> rules obscure this, but we can still make it out, e.g.
> de:spóte:s 'lord of the house' < *dénspote:s < IE *démspotis.

*dém-s *poti-s is a juxtapositon of two inflected words, not a
compound.

> > > Furthermore, zero-grade syllables could obviously
> > > carry accent in latest IE: witness *wl'kWos 'wolf' and
> > > *septm' 'seven'.
> >
> > Yes, relevance?
>
> The relevance is that zero-grade syllables are produced by lack of
> stress, so such syllables must have been *unstressed* earlier.
>
> > > All this seems to me like evidence of the accent
> > > weakening from one of stress to one of pitch.
> >
> > Why so?
>
> For one, the earliest attested IE descendants appear to have had
> pitch-accent. Another thing is the qualitative Ablaut. Finally,
> pitch-accent is not nearly as prone to syncope and apocope vowels

as

> stress-accent is, and the more recent IE forms do not seem to have
> undergone those processes.

There are plenty if vowel reductions in later Indic and Pashto; so
there is in Russian which has in principle retained the IE accent.

>
> > > 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.
>
> *-o-h1 gives *-o:, correct?

Sure.

> > > 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.
>
> I read it carefully. He indeed does not treat dat./abl. pl. for

some

> reason, so I relied on an "educated guess" there. However, he

*does*

> consider Vedic devébhyah to be an innovation, but he could be
> mistaken there.

No, he says correctly that the instrumental plural in -ébhih. is an
innovation (the old form being deváih.).

> > > 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.
>
> Hmm, perhaps. What about the neuter s-stems? Do those have a

plural

> in *-ex or *-x?

The s-stem NApl type Avest. vacå, Ved. váca:m.si, OE lombur, leading
to an IE *-o:s, demands underlying *-es-H2 (developed via *´-os-H2 >
*´-o:sH2 > *´-o:s). The forms of the other languages can be
analogical, but some may be old variants.

> > > 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?
>
> Yes, sorry. That was a careless mistake. Change that

to "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.
>
> All right. The jury still seems to be out whether *-ex-bhyos and

*-

> ex-bhis were innovations or not, but if they weren't, that would

tie

> the "thematic" declensions even closer to the "athematic" ones.

What could they possibly be innovations for?

> > > 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.
>
> Is it, now? Might you want to explain how? Saying so proves
> nothing, at least not to me. So please, by all means, prove your
> case.
>
> > > 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.
>
> Is there any concrete evidence that the vowel and the *h2 are
> separable?

Yes, this is aderivative from a thematic stem, ergo there is a
thematic stem in it, accoounting for the *-e- part, and the *-H2- is
an added suffix forming the feminine/collective.

>
> > > 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).

The neuter noun which is Latin fa:num 'temple', from Italic *fasnom,
has a feminine counterpart in Oscan fíísnu of like meaning,
reflecting Italic *fe:sna: . Now, that is a fine neuter-com-
collective pair with accent shift, sg. *fasnom, coll. *fe:sna: . The
IE predecessor will be *dh&1s-nó-m, coll. *dhéH1s-na-H2 .In this the
thematic vowel is accented in the singular, unaccented in the
collective.

> >
> > 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.
>
> Notice I said "originally" above. I'm trying to look at things
> diachronically here. Of course there is varying accent in IE.

What

> I'm saying is, the "thematic masculine" suffix was inherently
> stressed *at the time when that declension was formed*. Later
> processes made it so that the suffix no longer had to be stressed.

It may be a later process (everything is later than something), but
it is older than the ablaut we have set out so explain. That is the
opposite of what you preach.

> > > 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 really are disqualifying the facts as if you won't have them.
>
> Please point out any and all instances of my alleged disqualifying

of

> the facts. Are you sure that when you say "the facts", you don't
> really mean *your theories as to the origin(s) of those facts*?

I am sure I observe you clinging on to a preconceived idea of a
special relationship (or lack of one) between accent and vocalism
which does not hold in this subfield of the data.

>
> > > 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 affects a given sound must do so wherever that

sound

> > > exists in a language.

Right, so the idea that the thematic vowel is latecomer to the
system is stillborn.

> >
> > 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.
>
> Give me an example of a living language where special rules are
> observed to apply to stem-final vowels and other rules to vowels

in

> other positions *without any readily apparent conditioning factors
> separating the two groups*. I asked you this before and you

seemed

> to ignore it. If that's true, maybe you won't ignore it this time.

I can't produce another language like IE, but IE *is* like IE. This
is an empirical matter. It takes some Auslautgesetz to work on word-
final vowels before they become *stem*-final by subsequent adddition
of flexives and further suffixes. Lengthening of word-final vowels
is known from Avestan and Old Persian. So, if the prestage of PIE in
which the flexives had not grown fully on to the preceding word was
one that pronounce its wor-final vowels sonewhat longer than
elsewhere, there could well with the gluing-on of the flexives
result a system where pre-flexive vowels had a certain prominence
not seen elsewhere. That is all it takes.

>
> > > > 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.
>
> Excuse me?

You may read it again. You really asked for it. You asked, in
effect, why I would ascribe such a hypocritical attitude to you, and
I replied that such seems to be the way hypocrites act.

> > > In other words, you are again mistaken about me.
> >
> > Only if you are not the hipocrit I have taken you for.
>
> Calling me a hypocrite does not prove your ideas correct and mine
> wrong. Thus, there is nothing to be gained from this name-calling.

I didn't say that.

> > > 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.
> >

>
> Latin _sequo:r_ is a morphological passive, coming from a
> morphological middle. However, it is semantically active. What

is

> hard to understand about this?

Why would I not be able to understand it? I can, and I can also
understand that it is not relevant.

You need to address the fact that some special phonetic changes have
hit the thematic vowels. In my view that demands some separation of
thematic vowels from the rest of the vowels of the language at the
time of those changes. You also need to address the facts that many
thematoc formations have been fully processed by the accent-governed
vowel-deleting ablaut. IN my view that demanding the presence of
thematic vowels at the time of the operation of the basic ablaut
rules already. What is so terrible about a pre-agglutinative word-
final vowel strengthening which in my view would explain it all?

Jens