Re: [tied] Re: IE Thematic Vowel Rule

----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 7:53 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: IE Thematic Vowel Rule


>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "elmeras2000" <jer@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 6:46 AM
> Subject: [tied] Re: IE Thematic Vowel Rule
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "etherman23" <etherman23@...>
> wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Rob" <magwich78@...> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> 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.

> Jens

***
Patrick:

First, Jens, I am sorry you think we have had quarrels; I have discussed
these matters with you; and hopefully politely until you become impatient -
and, in my view, somewhat intemperate; perhaps, unfortunately, I respond to
that in kind.

Actually, I still have an open mind on your proposal of a different vowel
quality produced by voiced consonants terminating closed syllables such as
the final inflected syllable of some nominal or verbal inflections. Of
course, the some plural inflections of the first person should also produce
open syllables so there may be more to explain (perhaps by analogy).

We are all familiar with the phenomenon in English where a final voiced
consonant 'lengthens' the preceding vowel by combining its pre-occlusion
voicing with it.

Of course, that is a byway because it leads to something like Rob has
proposed: /a:/ > /o/.

I have an alternative to your analysis to propose, namely, that *V + *z
would have constituted a _closed_ syllable, the environment your proposed
change seems to have as a condition; but *V + z + yo could well have been
pronounced *V + zyo, leaving an _open_ syllable - not one in which your
proposal seems to work.

I have no great problem with considering the 'nominative' -*s as -*z though
I think there might be other explanations for a foregoing lengthened vowel
(/a:/ > /o/, again).

That would relieve you of the necessity of differentiating between the -*s's
of the nominative and genitive singulars which I believe is a needless
complication.

While I believe that all nominal and verbal inflections ultimately are based
on nouns (a few like the dative case, on verbs [*Hey-]), I am very
suspicious of what a relative pronoun could contribute to a nominal
inflection. I feel very certain that -*syo is our nominal *-s + *-yV, which
shows up in gentitives without -*s in Latin and Celtic notably.

***