--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Mate Kapoviæ <mkapovic@...> wrote:
> Also, if you explain u-stems as originally thematic, how do you
explain
> the origin of i-stems?
> Isn't it a little bit strange to claim that u-stems derive from the
> o-stems when o-stems look like a new thing, being 'regular', not
> 'complicated' etc., while u-stems look old because of the
complicated
> ablaut and accentual changes?
No, I supppose that u-stems and i-stems are two older offshoots of
the type which otherwise became o-stems. The theorem that the
thematic vowel is not weakened by (lack of) accent only applies to
younger layers of the material. In very archaic survivals originally
unaccented "e/o" appears as /u/ or /i/. I do not think we have the
full picture of the allomorphy, but at least a triad like Vedic
stótum, stutá-, sú-s.t.uti- shows relatively plainly that é/ó was
the form under the accent, while /u/ appeared immediately after the
accent, and /i/ was the unaccented form in composition. There may be
more layers in this, such as a younger one in which any unaccented
them.vow. becomes /i/, as indicated by e.g. Gk. ókris, trópis, OCS
zUlI etc. I would thus take adjectival -ú- to represent an event
of "internal derivation" from a substantive in unaccented -u-. And
su:nú-s could have a renewed accent underscoring its high degree of
animacy.
Much of the material however seems severely compromised by the
raging of the contrastive accent used to opgrade and downgrade a
word on a scale of animacy. Such accent shifts appear to have worked
at all stages, i.e. before any ablaut, and during the diverse
changes we call ablaut, and even after it all, giving different
results depending on the rules of the time.
Jens