Re: [tied] PIE Word Formation (2)

From: andrew jarrette
Message: 44076
Date: 2006-04-01



From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
Reply-To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [tied] PIE Word Formation (2)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 23:52:15 -0000

> Andrew: I am a little uncomfortable with this hypothesis.  According
to this idea, shouldn't *bhor�s have then become *bh�ros (merging with
original *bh�ros), which would then subsequently become *bh�rus (as
would also original *bh�ros) or *bhr.us?

Not if the shift was rather late. The first *o, according to Jens,
reflects some kind of vocalised sonorant. Between the formation of
thematic adjectives of this kind and the contrastive accent shift we
must allow sufficient time for O-metathesis and vocalisation.

_______________________

Let me see if I understand:  By "the first *o" my guess is you mean not the first syllable of either *bh�ros or *bhor�s, but rather the suffixal *o of the first alternative *bh�ros as opposed to the suffixal *o of the second alternative *bhor�s.  So from this I imagine you mean that this suffixal *o reflects a vocalized sonorant which was prone to reduction to *u, as opposed to *o of other origin?  Or do you actually mean the first syllable of either *bh�ros or *bhor�s?  Continuing, I am not familiar with "0-metathesis".  I have no idea what this is, and therefore cannot see how it relates to the change of suffixal *-o- to *-u-.  I can guess that this has either been discussed previously on cybalist, or a dissertation about it has been cited, but I don't know where to look.  But if the contrastive accent shift is all that is necessary to change *-o- to *-u-, doesn't that validate my point that all o-stems would have become u-stems, due to contrastive accent shift?  Obviously I must misunderstand.  Can you please elucidate?  And what importance is vocalization (of the sonorant that became *-o-?) to the change of *-o- to *-u-?  I am still very unclear about this matter.



> To me acceptance of this hypothesis would suggest that there would
come to be no o-stems at all, since their unstressed *o would always
be reduced to *u, including after formerly unstressed initial
syllables became stressed.  I don't really understand the conditions
under which thematic *-o- would become *-u-.  Also, mightn't one also
expect unaccented thematic *-e- to become *-i- (in thematic verbs, etc.)?

The thematic vowel in verbs was originally accented, and it took some
time for the accent to undergo retraction. The reductions of the
thematic vowel to *i or *u belong to a relatively deep chronological
level.

__________

Are you implying that thematic *-e- actually did become reduced to *-i- in some paradigms?  I've never heard of this and have no idea in which declensions or conjugations this occurred, regardless of when it happened, if it did.  Can you please explain a little further, including in what forms we see the reduction of *-e- to *-i-?

Andrew Jarrette





SPONSORED LINKS
Online social science degree Social science course Social science degree
Social science education Bachelor of social science Social science major

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS





Help protect your PC with Virus Guard and Firewall from MSN Premium. Join now and get the first two months FREE*