Re: [tied] Re: PIE genitive plural *-o:m, a possible analysis (*wL'

----- Original Message -----

From: Patrick Ryan

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 1:15 PM

Subject: Re: [tied] Re: PIE genitive plural *-o:m, a possible analysis (*wL'kWo-s)

 

***

Patrick:

One of the advantages of the methods I propose for PIE word-formation is that I attempt to provide reasons for the developments as opposed to simply noting, for example, (unmotivated) forms with  a "thematic vowel", or arguing weakly, in my opinioon, from analogy.

 

I suggest that one of the more compelling reasons for analyzing the "thematic vowel" in *wL'kWo-s as a morpheme rather than a meaningless grace-note is provided by the reconstructed feminine form *wLkWí:-s seen in Old Indian vRkí:H.

 

In order to fully understand this, we must go back to Hittite ulippana-, 'wolf', which is, I think almost unquestionably, relatable to PIE *wL'po-s, 'wolf'.

 

It is very plausible that the *wL- of both *wL'kWo-s and *wL'po-s can be related.

 

Let me say first that I believe the earliest PIE word for 'wolf' was *wa:(i) (seen in *wa:(i)-lo-s, 'wolf'), with a naturally long vowel subsequently shortened; and for 'sheep', *pa:, with a naturally long vowel subsequently shortened (probably seen in Egyptian b3 [for /ba:/], 'ram'); however, the word for 'herd', *so:(i) , with a naturally long vowel subsequently shortened, seen in Tocharian B s/aiyye and Tocharian A s/os/, was used also for 'sheep'.

 

*wa:(i)- was rarely employed for apotropaic reasons.

 

Since sheep were probably the earliest domesticated animals of mankind, and the primary predator of sheep was the wolf, a term was needed to refer to wolves without actually naming them, and, in the process, effectively summoning them.

 

A very early solution to this problem was to combine *wél&-, 'wool', standing safely for *so:-, 'sheep', with an appropriate modifier: *páHØ-, 'bite(r)'; and *kWéyØ-, 'observe(r)'; these would have produced *wélØp&- and *wélØkWi-. With the addition of *Ha, a feminine formant, we have, with the latter: *wLkWíHØ > *wLkWí:-(s).

 

*wélØp&- and *wélØkWi- meant 'wolf', undifferentiated genderwise. The oldest method of designating the plural was to shift the stress-accent to the ultima: *wLp&é and *wLkWyé, which were resolved to *wLpé and *wLkWé; and with the addition of the ergative/nominative -*se:, derived from a Caucasian morpheme meaning simply 'certain', became *wLpés& and *wLkWés&, and finally *wLpés and *wLkWés, both meaning 'wolves, erg./nom.'.

 

After the significance of the thematic extension was forgotten (plurality), the stress-accent was retracted to the root to resume the (singular) penultimate stress-accent: *wL'pos and *wL'kWos.

 

Though the earliest 'genitive' (really 'relational') singular would have been **wLpéyØ and **wLkWéyØ, a new function for the shift of stress-accent was introduced to create an adjectival form from the ergative/nominative, which became a 'genitive': *wLpós and *wLkWós, shown to be late by the failure of stress-accented *ó to again become *é. 

 

Previously, in this thread, Piotr made the following remarks:

 

"It doesn't :). Seriously, *h3reg^- seems capable of yielding Narten
forms, cf. RV 3sg. ré:s.t.i 'rules', 3sg. inj. ré:t. < *h3re:g^-t . For
an originally static root noun I would expect the following forms:

  nom. *h3ro:g^-s
  acc. *h3re:g^-m.
  gen. *h3reg^-s
  voc. *h3re:g^

Typically, the accusative would have developed an analogical o-grade
form modelled on the vocalism of the nominative (like *pod-m. for
**pe:d-m., the proportional equation being *h2ne:r : *h2ner-m. = po:d-s
: X). The reason why the 'king' word does not behave typically is, I
think, the vocative, with its atypically high frequency of use (in any
imaginable IE social setting "O king!" would have been several orders of
magnitude more frequent than "O foot!"). The vocative-supported *e: not
only remained in the accusative but also managed to spread to the
remaining cases already in PIE."

Here is the analogy argument again, which I seriously question.

 

1. I know of no justification for reconstructing *H3 as the initial. While I admit the probability of an initial 'laryngeal', my choice would be *H2.

 

2. So far as I know, there is no justification for reconstructing nom. *h3ro:g^-s. The vowel of the root probably was not long before the deletion of the initial 'laryngeal' for which the lengthened root-vowel was compensation; I reconstruct *H2rég^Ø-sØ > *ré:g^-s.

 

3. There is therefore no reason to expect anything but *H2rég^-M in the accusative.

 

4. The late 'genitive' we should expect would be *re:g^és but the nominative *ré:g^s allowed the retraction of the stress-accent to the penultimate without creating ambiguity: *ré:g^es.

 

 

***