Re: IE Thematic Vowel Rule

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

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Rob" <magwich78@...> wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > But how can you say there was *no* special prominence in stem-

final

> > vowels?
>
> Rather easily, I think.
>
> > That is what we observe, and denying it is a very strong

statement

> > that demands good arguments in its favour. You do not seem to

accept

> > that obligation.
>
> Technically, we don't observe anything in IE. Every reconstructed

IE

> form has an asterisk in front of it, meaning that there is *no

direct

> attestation* for the form. However, comparative evidence being

what it

> is, we've arrived at something which is very close to what IE

actually

> was. In that vein, then, we can "observe" the "thematic"

declensions

> as they were at the very end of IE proper. But we cannot directly
> observe what the prestages were for those declensions. Thus, to

say

> that we can (let alone do) observe the prestages is erroneous.

I was not referring to prestages, but to the final point in time of
the IE unity, the day before the first change known to us that did
not encompass the whole family (as known to us). There is such a
special status to the thematic vowel in Greek, there is in Celtic,
there is in Sanskrit, there is in Germanic, there is in Balto-
Slavic, why would PIE, the language of the final phase of the iE
unity, be dramatically different?

> I hate to say this, but I fear that you are confusing theory with

fact

> here. As a result, I'm not surprised that you hardly give any
> consideration to my arguments.

It sounds to me like you are talking to a mirror. It all applies to
you, not me.

> > I find it relatively easy to guess at word-final vowel

lengthening

> > (as in Avestan and Old Persian) operating at a time before

the

> > flexives became fully attached. That would indeed produce what

we

> > find. I do not know the development of many languages over

millennia,

> > so I do not feel particularly embarrassed that I cannot

produce

> > another one that does exactly the same.
>
> Now that sounds more plausible to me. Word-final syllables in

many

> languages are prosodically special (I believe the term

is "anceps") --

> that is, they can be interpreted as short or long in languages

that

> contrast vowel length.

Well, now we're getting some place. The impossible is happening.

> Allow me to do a thought-experiment here. Let's pick a secure IE

word -

> - *ágro- 'field' < *xégro- (I consider the *e to be phonemic, but

not

> phonetic). If the Ablauting vowel began as a central vowel, such
> as /a/, then an even earlier form would've been *xágra-. With
> lengthening of word-final vowels, we'd get *xágra:-. If the vowel
> remained long when case-endings were added, then we'd have

*xágra:s,

> *xágra:m, etc. A sound-change whereby /a:/ > /o:/ > /o/ would be
> sufficient to produce the "thematic" declension as we believe it

to be,

> based on the comparative evidence. In that case, there would

probably

> be no need for a separate phoneme /z/.

You do not know that the thematic vowel was ever a. It does not have
an unconditioned phenotype of that shape. Its unaffected form is e
as we see it. Appearances can be deceitful, but who is to tell us
whether they are, and if, in what way? I have tried just about
everything, and the rule actually works better with e than with
anything else in my experience.

> However, if the stem-final vowel was shortened when case-endings

were

> added, then we'd have *xágras, *xágram, etc. With this situation,

it

> is not as easy to attribute the vowel quality to purely vocalic

sound-

> changes. So a phoneme or allophone /z/ may be necessary here.

That is just empty speculation. And shortening does not look like a
very obvious way to explain absence of expected reduction.

> The question, however, is why some IE nouns have stems in vowels

and

> some do not. Were the different categories formed at different

times?

> Are some borrowings and others are not?

There are consonants and vowels in the phonemic inventory, and they
are all used. That can be reason enough. You do not demand a theory
about the function of the phoneme /t/, do you? Then why demand a
deep philosophical justification for the use of a vowel? There may
be one, but it does not seem to have much relevance for the matter
we are discussing.

Jens