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

From: Rob
Message: 40253
Date: 2005-09-21

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
> Rob wrote:
> > So then we have the following, according to you (I do not mean
> > that derisively; I just want to make sure we're on the same page):
> >
> > **[atonic short vowel] > *[zero]
> > **[atonic long vowel] > *[atonic short vowel]
> Yes, at a time when (pre-)PIE vowel prominence was a matter of
> expiratory stress rather than pitch accent, hence the reductions in
> unstressed positions.

Well, at least we agree here that IE (or its ancestor) had expiratory
stress to begin with. Question: do you think it still had this after
qualitative Ablaut? I do not, for I see qualitative Ablaut arising
from pitch accent.

> In comparatively reconstructed PIE any syllable could be accented
> and the accent didn't affect its vocalism; we have, for example,
> stressed syllabic consonants as in *wl.'kWos and *septm.', and
> plenty of unstressed full vowels, as well as contrasting stress of
> the type represented by *tomh1-ó-s vs. *tómh1-o-s (not unlike
> English accént vs. áccent).

Exactly. I see this as meaning IE's accentuation, by the end of the
language proper, no longer followed any of the previous rules. The
question is, what happened to make it so?

On another note, do you know where the English accentual
distinctions, such as accént vs. áccent and recórd vs. récord, come

> > **[tonic short vowel] > *[tonic short vowel]
> > **[tonic long vowel] > *[tonic long vowel]
> Basically, yes, though the pattern could be different in final
> syllables, which were more resistant to reduction and often
> affected by processes producing long vowels (compensatory
> lengthening, contraction) even posttonically.

Is it generally the case that final syllables are more resistant to
reduction, or does it depend on the prosodic structure of a given

> > Where do you see a "frequent preference for initial stress" in
> > IE? I do not see any such thing until the very end (perhaps even
> > only dialectally).
> Verbs like *bHér-e/o- and *spék^-je/o-, old vr.ddhied formations
> like *néw-o-s, the accentual patterns of reduplicated verbs, etc.

I see all of those as being very recent within IE. How do you
suppose *néwos was old?

> Exceptions like causatives (*mon-éje/o-) or o-grade deverbatives
> like *tomh1-áh2 or *tor(h2)-mó- are only apparent if one follows
> Jens in regarding their root vocalism as a late development (from a
> vocalised consonantal infix). I tentatively accept his solution,
> since it takes care of several other vexing problems at the same
> time (e.g. the Saussurean dropping of root-final laryngeals in such
> formations).

I see the causative formation in CoC-éje/o- and o-grade deverbatives
as arising from the period where pitch accent produced qualitative
Ablaut (what I call "distinctive pitch accent"). At that stage,
atonic vowels would have been preserved (later becoming /o/), thus
e.g. *mán- > *mén- but *man-ája- > *mon-éje/o-.

- Rob