[tied] Re: o-grade thoughts

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

>
> On 2006-08-30 00:41, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > You got that right. I'm trying to explain an ablaut variant and
> > you are declaring there is nothing to explain.
>
> I'm doing nothing like that. I'm just referring to Jens's
> theory that the O-fix does NOT derive from the root vowel
> historically, and so is NOT its ablaut variant.

You might think you said that, but you didn't.

> >> 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
>
> How does that explain the final accent, or the non-reduction of
> *tomh1ó-s to *tm.h1-ós?

Because they're thematics. I follow Sturtevant in assuming that
thematics came about because people wanted to let a preceding
attributive noun in the genitive agree in case with the noun
it modified, and did so by adding case endings to a stem based
on the end-stressed genitive.

> >> or in *-éje/o- causatives.
> >
> > Two separate words. *mon éjeti. Or *monéh1 jeti, with
> > instrumental case?
>
> The effect of the laryngeal would be visible in this context.

Yes, in the last case I'd have to do some special pleading
(or more homework).

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

> Reduplication itself is a kind of special circumstance.

On the other hand, if everybody else uses special pleading,
why shouldn't I? I believe you also appealed to special
circumstances with *-eje/o in Slavic?

> Originally, both vowels may have been accented, since each
> belonged to a (different copy of the same) lexical morpheme
> without any affixes.

Probably, and then ablaut came around.

> > 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).
>
> That's iterativity again, not plurality.

That's misunderstanding again.

> >> The only sure case of an unreduplicated perfect (both in
> >> the singular and in the plural) is *woid-/*wid-, 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.
>
> Reasons like the fact that the perf. part. of 'know' is not
> *wóid-wot/us- or the like but *wéid-wot/us-, whose first
> syllable is best explained as a regular reduplicated form,
> *wé-wid-, contracted into *weid- already in PIE.

Personally, I believe PIE ablaut was like this

PPIE a > PIE e, o, zero
PPIE i > PIE ei, ei, i
PPIE u > PIE ou, ou, u

later in some languages systematized as

PIE e, o, zero
PIE ei, oi, i
PIE eu, ou, u

This is nice, since it avoids the PIE single-vowel problem
of traditional solutions.

With this scheme, your -ei- would not stick out against an
expected -oi-, since it would be -ei- that was expected.


Torsten