--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
wrote:
> 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.
What do you want to know that for? All the evidence shows a vowel
there, why should we posit anything else as its source? There are
vowels in many places in IE, so why would there not be stems ending
in vowels, especially if that is what we see?
> > 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.
I already have: There were stems ending in vowels, and stem-final
vowels are subject to special phonological rules, that's what we
observe. Why can stem-final vowels be treated differently from other
vowels, I am now constantly being asked as if *I* were responsible
for that. I do have a suggestion for a reply: because the *stem-
final* vowels were once *word-final*, so that we are in reality
faced with old Auslautgesetze of an Iranian-type kind, imparting
some extra dose of weight on word-final vowels. When flexives are
fused with preceding stems, the old stem-final vowels become word-
internal, but apparently keep their special weight in that the
vowels are not deleted when unaccented but go by special rules. From
a synchronic point of view, these rules then apply to the special
juncture between stem-final vowels and following flexives. As with
other such rules there needs to be local marking in some cases,
certainly with *-s which can act both as voiced and as voiceless, in
my best estimation most probably reflecting an earlier opposition of
two different phonemes.
Jens