Re: IE Thematic Vowel Rule

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "etherman23" <etherman23@...>
wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Rob" <magwich78@...> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> > 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).
>
> Note in all these cases (except gen sg) the thematic vowel is

followed

> by a voiced sound as long as we assume *-s# was voiced. In the gen

sg

> it looks like the *-yo suffix was added to a previous *-os# which

also

> agreed with Jens' Law. It's assumed that the thematic vowel was
> orginally *e.
>
> > Looking at the o-stem neuter nouns, we have the following:
> >
> > Nom./Acc. sg. *-om pl. *-a: < *-ex
>
> Correct. Note that *x is unvoiced, but colors *e to *a and then
> lengthens it.
>
> > 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.
> >
> > 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
> >
> > 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
> >
> > 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.
>
> So now in all cases the *e is followed by *x which colors and
> lengthens it to *a:. With Jens' Law we can reconstruct a single
> thematic vowel *e that will explain both paradigms.
>
> It seems that you're arguing for two different systems, even though
> one suffices. Occam's Razor suggests we use Jens' Law because it's
> simpler. When we turn our attention to thematic verbs Jens' Law
> applies even as well. In your system it seems you'd have to
> reconstruct two thematic vowel systems (one in *e and the other in

*o)

> and assume they merge into one with the *o system occuring with

voiced

> consonants and *-s and the *e system occuring elsewhere. Isn't it
> simpler to assume one system with lenition of final *s to /z/?
>
> The conditioning factor is most likely stress. Presumably the
> alternation happens on syllables following stress, whereas

stressed *e

> is unchanged. Stressed thematic vowels would come after ablaut.

Much of this is not adequate either. I have been over this so many
times on these lists that a certain frustration is beginning to show
its ugly face. The matter is not so simple that it can all be said
in a sentence, and therefore ever new participants chip in with
wisecracks based on the little bits they pick up on the sideline.
That has led to repeated distortions of the problems and incessant
annoyance.

There are in a sense two thematic vowels, one -e-, one -o-, but only
in the sense that the almost-stable -o- is what is found in nouns
(perhaps only substantives). The original voice-governed selection
of -e- and -o- is retained quite faithfully in verbs and in pronouns
(and perhaps adjectives).

The gen.sg. in *-osyo is that of nouns, the pronominal form is *-
esyo. That indicates to me (we have had frustrating quarrels over it
here) that the sibilant of the genitive was voiceless, and that the
collocation *-e-s + *-yo (containing some reduced form of the
relative pronoun) does not contain the same elements as the
nominative *-o-z (> *-o-s); or, conversely, that the nom. *-o-z (> *-
o-s) does not contain an old genitive.

There is also the superstructure to the thematic vowel complex that,
in very archaic lexicalizations, the expected "thematic vowel"
appears as *-i- when unaccented; or perhaps I should say, "when
unaccented enough". That is seen from such examples as the enclitics
*im, *id opposed to orthotone forms like *tóm, *tód; bahuvrihis like
Lat. insignis (signum), Ved. dhu:má-gandhi- 'having the smell of
smoke' (gandhá- 'smell'), and quite a few other types of related
examples. Benveniste did some of the groundbreaking work, and I have
also written quite extensively about it myself, and the matter seems
now at least to be generally known.

Therefore it is quite wrong to perceive of the thematic vowel as
originally unaccented. In contrast with the i-variants it is
definitely *accented*, but the i-variants have generally proved
short-lived, so that an accent-neutral e/o thematic vowel must have
been a fact at the time of the operation of the main ablaut changes.

Jens