[tied] Re: o-grade thoughts

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

>
> On 2006-08-29 20:53, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > Erh, and? How does the first statement follow from the last?
> > You're saying that since the o-grade of perf sg is accented
> > and that of derivations isn't, they are the results of different
> > processes?
>
> At least, they inhabit different accentual environments. The
> o-grade of the perfect is rather clearly an ablaut variant of
> the root vowel.

You got that right. I'm trying to explain an ablaut variant and
you are declaring there is nothing to explain.

> The O-fix has some peculiarities pointing to its original
> independence: in some root structures it doesn't
> move into the root-vowel slot but remains in the prefix position;

And then it vamooses, and no one knows where it vamoosed from, so
how is that an explanation?

> in others (some roots containing *u/w) it doesn't seem to have
> been vocalised at all. It also fails to attract accent the way
> true vowels do.

Because: those composites in which the first component has o-grade
were then two independent words.

> >> Had it been a real full vowel originally, we would
> >> expect accent retraction in all O-fixations.
> >
> > Not if the prefix vamoosed fast enough, see below.
>
> What I mean is: there's no accent retraction in the *tomh1-ó-s
> and *tomh1-á-h2 types,

Because they are derived from an athematic *tom-s, *tom-ós

> or in *-éje/o- causatives.

Two separate words. *mon éjeti. Or *monéh1 jeti, with
instrumental case?

> Normally, the
> root vowel would have drawn the accent from the suffix. Here
> it didn't which probably means that there was a time when this
> infixed *o didn't behave like a vowel (i.e. the structure of
> the stem was something like *tRmh1-ó-)
>

Or they were not part of he same word.

> >> A _reduplicated_ stem by definition provides more room.
> >
> > Erh, meaning what?
>
> A reduplication is by definition longer than the morpheme it
> is based on. Why shouldn't it contain two vowels if that's
> what reduplication is all about?

But that is no what ablaut is about. One of the vowels would
have to be zero grade, unless there were special circumstances.

> > But semantically, reduplication, meaning plurality, made no
> > sense in the sg and must have been introduced analogically.
>
> Reduplication may also express intensity, repetition and the
> like ("It rained and rained as he rode and rode").

And originally that meant: it rained, then it rained;
he rode, then he rode. Plurality of rains spells,
plurality of riding stages.

> It doesn't
> necessarily take two people to do bang-bang.

Bang-bang means two bangs, whether done by one person or several.

> As a matter of
> fact, I don't know _any_ examples of IE reduplication expressing
> plurality, in verbs or in nouns.
>

Except for the plural of perf. or iteratives (OHG bebo:n =
contract muscles in fear several times).

> > I note with relish that the PPIE *-a-a- -> PIE *-i-o- tendential
> > pattern seems to be as general as PPIE *-aCa- -> PIE *-iCo-.
> > In the sg of the perfect, that would mean that PPIE *aman- ->
> > *imon- which could go either way of -> *mon- (with a rule giving
> > loss of "i-grade" in anlaut) or -> *mimon-/*memon- by analogy with
> > the plural. Now I have a theory of the o-grade of the sg of the
> > perfect, and that theory reduces, not increases the number of
> > entia in PIE. What do you have? Your move.
>
> See above. Where is the evidence that reduplication was _ever_
> restricted to the plural in (pre-)PIE? The only sure case of an
> unreduplicated perfect (both in the singular and in the plural) is
> *woid-/*wid-,

Germanic preterito-presents. Ch.Sl. mogU.

> and there are reasons to believe that it represents an
> exceptionally early case of de-reduplication (due perhaps to its
> frequency of use).

What reasons? Semantics provides a good reason: Knowing is not
countable. Neither is being able to or willing to.


Torsten