[tied] Re: IE thematic presents and the origin of their thematic vo

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

> Rob wrote:
>
> > I still see no reason to posit any underlyingly long root
> > vowels. If there were, we would expect to see an é:/o
> > alternation, given the apparent features of IE pitch accent and
> > qualitative Ablaut.
>
> Could you be more specific?

Certainly. If the Ablautend vowel (which I mark as 'a' for the
stages before its phonetic alternations became phonemic) had a long
version, it would have been preserved as long only when stressed.
The unstressed long vowels would have fallen in with the short ones.
Later, any unstressed Ablautend vowels became o-timbre. So, by those
rules, the alternation should be one of /é:/ vs. /o/.

> The main effect of the presence of a Narten vowel is the
> alternation of *e: and *e (the latter in originally unstressed
> positions). In those positions where we would expect *e: itself to
> be lengthened (i.e. superlong), we find *o: (or *o as a conditioned
> shortened reflex thereof).

What are those positions, if you don't mind me asking?

> Finally, Jens's O-prefix/infix theory predicts a long,
> _secondarily_ accented *ó: in thematic deverbatives and causatives
> derived from Narten roots (as in *swó:pjeti). In specific
> conditions we find even more exotic alternations that can be
> explained in similar ways, cf. *a/*e:/*o: in *káp-je/o- 'take,
> grasp' with an a-coloured vowel from earlier **kép-je/o- <
> ***ke:p-jé/ó- (Lat. capio:, Goth. hafjan) vs. *ke:p- (perhaps
> directly reflected in Lat. ce:pi:) vs. *kó:pah2 (Gk.
> kó:pe: 'handle') from **O-kép-e-h2 < ***O-ke:p-é-h2.

How is the accentuation secondary there? I'm having trouble
understanding this.

Regarding Gk. _kó:pe:_ 'handle', it seems that this is a rather late
formation and analogical to the typical pattern of CoC(C)é: (e.g.
_poté:_ 'flight'). The initial accent, in my opinion, reflects its
lateness.

> > Actually, including '*h2' would be even better, for the rule
> > could be further *generalized* such that all fricatives in word-
> > final (if not overall coda) position cause lengthening of the
> > preceding vowel.
>
> But they don't! Gen.sg. *-s doesn't lengthen anything, nor does the
> 2sg. -s in verbs, or the *s of *swek^s, whatever it is, etc. As for
> the "overall coda" condition, there is no lengthening in
> *swek^stos, for example, or in derivatives of roots with final *h2,
> such as *telh2-, *perh2-, etc., if the derivational suffix begins
> with a consonant.

Sorry, I shouldn't have said "all fricatives in word-final ...
position". What I meant was all fricatives in word-final (if not
overall coda) position *following a coda consonant*. My mistake. Of
course you are right in what you say above.

> > Don't productive processes sometimes still have limited range?
>
> Limited to _that_ extent? The Narten pattern is rather similar to
> palatal umlaut in English. The latter has left many obscure traces
> in the lexicon (<foul/filth>, <comb/unkempt>) and in isolated
> irregular alternations (<foot/feet>), but lost all its productivity
> many centuries ago.

So what do you think the apparent Narten pattern can be attributed
to, ultimately?

- Rob