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.

I understand the connection. Undeniably, we see o-vocalism before a
voiced consonant (or another vowel) in the "thematic vowel".
However, correlation and causation are two different things, and the
former does not necessarily imply the latter.

Now, I do not deny the possibility that final *-s was voiced as a
result of sandhi phenomena. Quite often in Sanskrit there are forms
with underlying /-s/ that sometimes show up with /-r/ in sandhi.
It's possible that those positions show earlier /-z/ which further
weakened to /-r/ (i.e. sandhi rhotacism). The question of whether
this phenomenon existed in IE itself is still an open one, though.

> > 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 only way there can be e-vocalism in the suffix is if it was
originally stressed -- the laryngeals don't seem to color /o/. Also,
I wouldn't say the laryngeal here "colors *e to *a", but rather the
original quality of the vowel -- /a/ -- is preserved.

> > 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.

I don't think that the feminine suffix contained a thematic vowel.
That is, I don't think the vowel of the suffix was separate from the
laryngeal. I reconstruct a unitary suffix *-áx > *-éx (in *phonemic*
terms; the phonetic realization would have remained [-áx], I think).

> 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/?

I do not reconstruct two "thematic vowel" systems. Rather, I
reconstruct only one, that which forms the "thematic" masculine and
neuter declensions (save for the neuter nom.-acc. pl., which I think
was suppletive). To me, the "thematic feminine" declension seems to
have actually been an *athematic* one. The problem with Jens' theory
is that it is typologically unrealistic. Absent any conditioning
factor(s), there is no reason why a language would treat stem-final
vowels somehow differently from all other vowels. Thus, I do not
think that Jens' system is simpler than mine.

> [snip]

- Rob