Re: [tied] Alternating foot

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

>
> On 2006-10-07 17:26, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > A-hem. Root vowels don't go away ever, except in special cases.
>
> They don't go away when an acrostatic noun is normally declined.
> They may go away in an evironment notorious for making segments
> go away. In compounds, laryngeals fail to vocalise or disappear
> altogether, consonant clusters get simplified, and even an
> underlyingly long vowel may be reduced to zero.

Let me rephrase then: Root vowels don't go away ever, except in
environments notorious for making things go away?

> > Shouldn't this rather lead us to construe those cases of
> > acrostatic root nouns where we'd expect zero grade, but find
> > something else, as reconstructed?
>
> I'm not sure I see what you mean.

I think I mean o-grade. e-grade we understand. And zero grade.

> There's some pretty good evidence for
> the e-grade in the weak cases of acrostatic nouns, and no evidence
> for the zero grade there. In what sense is the latter "expected"?

In root nouns the stress has nowhere to go. No wonder it causes
trouble. Note BTW that amphikinetic stems have *CéCoCC-, *CCCéC-.
Now if we see an acrostatic root in its totality with a preceding
noun, we might get the same: *CéC-CoCC-, *CC-CCéC-. There were
many more ti-ri-po-de(-jo) in Linear B than actual feet.

> > BTW, am I right in assuming that in nominal O-V constructions of
> > the type X-i-Y (dragon-slayer) that the root vowel is in zero or
> > o-grade?
>
> There are three types of compounds with a verbal noun in the second
> position and a governed first member. The vocalism of the second
> member depends on the type:
>
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/44428

OK


Torsten