Re: IE Thematic Vowel Rule

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Rob" <magwich78@...> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> I find your attitude very strange.

With all due respect, you can find it however you want to. It makes
no difference to me.

> You are obviously clinging to the mere hope that the evidence we
> have is deceitful.

You seem to be under the impression that I do not want to admit that
you're correct. If that is true, you could not be more mistaken.
There is no denial here with me.

> Why not work out rules that explain the language as we observe it?
> That's what I have done.

I feel that I have done the same. Each of us thinks that the other
is mistaken somewhere in his reasoning. We are not working purely
with evidence alone; we are also working with deduction. It is our
deductions that differ and that we argue about.

> > Now, I do not deny the possibility that final *-s was voiced as a
> > result of sandhi phenomena.
>
> Why would it be a sandhi phenomenon in pre-PIE?

Not pre-IE; IE itself. As I said, though, it's merely a
*possibility*, not something I've solidly concluded yet.

> There are no known alternants, so there is no problem of
> alternation to account for. To me it looks like a phoneme /z/
> opposed to /s/.

When relying solely on internal comparison, one can propose any sorts
of phonemes that subsequently merged with others that remained in the
language, and no one can really prove him right *or* wrong. In other
words, no one can prove that a phoneme /z/ existed in a prestage of
the language, and no one can prove that such a phoneme didn't exist.
Ultimately, comparison with other extant languages must provide the
evidence we need here.

> > 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.
>
> The Sanskrit -r is indeed from a voiced retroflex *-z. (Iranian
> z^), whích was a sandhi variant of RUKI *-s. (Iranian s^), but that
> is not relevant for a prestage of PIE.

I agree, but I think it *may* be relevant for the last stage of IE
itself.

> > 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.
>
> /H2/ does colour /e/, for in cases of lengthened grade the form is
> e:H2 or H2e: (not a:H2, H2a:).

Hmm. What caused the lengthened grade there in the first place?

> > 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).
>
> That is wrong. The nom.-acc. neuter plural is a strong case and so
> cannot have an underlying vowel; that excludes *-eH2 leaving only *-
> H2.

I don't think the nom.-acc. neuter plural fits into the strong-
case/weak-case dichotomy. It seems that the suffix was added after
those alternations had been fixed.

> > 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.
>
> It is plainly observable that there is a major break in the words
> at that point.

Define "major break", please.

> The flexives have a more varied vocalism than the stem-forming
> suffixes, so *something* has been going [on] at this particular
> morpheme boundary.

Since I do not relate the "thematic feminine" with the "thematic
masculine", I do not see how what you say above necessarily stands.
I consider the o-suffix of the "thematic masculine" and the a:-suffix
of the "thematic feminine" to *be* stem-forming suffixes.

> Some are just unwilling to take stock of it for reasons I cannot
> respect. My own suggestion is that word-final vowels once had a
> certain prominence later reflected by the special resistence
> towards ablaut reductions. In what way is that impossible? Or
> inadequate? Or complicated? Or contrived?

Well, do you have any idea as to what that "certain prominence" was?
I, for one, cannot answer those questions until I get more
information about your ideas here.

- Rob