Re: IE Thematic Vowel Rule

> >
> > All true. You didn't take a position on whether the thematic

stem

> > and the person and number endings were independent words

recently?

>
> I don't understand the question. What does "recently" mean? Any
> analysis of the collocations of stem + flexive as consisting of

two

> distinct words each goes beyond the time frame relevant for the
> disentanglement of the ablaut rules. The IE ablaut rules (e > o >
> zero and all that) apply to forms in which the flexives are

already

> fully fused with the stems. This is especially relevant for the
> strong forms which act as if there are no vowels in the final

part,

> while the flexives of the weak forms act as if they contain a

vowel

> each. Some have taken the extra step of assigning vowels to all of
> them even at this stage, i.e. one vowel to the strong forms and

two

> to the weak ones. I find this excessive, and I find it next to
> inconceivable that the decline of the vocalism does not pass

through

> a phase with an interplay of one and zero vowels. If the strong-

form

> flexives once had vowels also, as may seeem credible, there has

been

> an earlier reduction before the stage of, say, nom. *-z, gen. *-

os,

> was reached in the prehistory of PIE. It is in that case the
> *result* of that process that has been subjected to the working of
> the ablaut rules we can specify. It has been my experience that

such

> a phase lends itself very well indeed to the specification of
> automatic phonological rules.

Thank you for the explanation. You still haven't explained how the
thematic vowel got itself manoeuvered into a position so that a
phonological rule applies to it only and to no other ablaut vowels.

> > Now if it's the way I believe it happened, then the thematic
> > inflection is a static-stress-ification of an old semi-thematic
> > inflection. That proposal, since it implies a modification of
> > an "existing model", doesn't need thematic stem and person and
> > number endings to have been independent words recently. It also
> > explains why it was introduced in both verbs and nouns; the

common

> > purpose was stress-regularisation, not a morphological or

semantic

> > one.
>
> In my opinion it did not happen the way you believe. The thematic
> inflections are not semi-, but fully thematic. They do not always
> have anything in common of a functional nature, what they all have
> in common is the mere fact that the stem end in a vowel. That can

be

> explained as the effect of an old juncture phenomenon.
>

Please explain.


Torsten