On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 01:41:33 +0100, Piotr Gasiorowski
<
gpiotr@...> wrote:
>On 2008-02-22 01:08, Patrick Ryan wrote:
>
>> One point I would take up if you feel like pursuing it with me.
>>
>> Thematic vowel reduced to -*I-?
>>
>> So, now the thematic vowel, *A, is realizable as *e, *o, *Ø, AND *i.
>>
>> In my opinion, this is flat-out wrong.
>
>Can a fact be wrong? We often have thematic *-e/o- "replaced" by *-i- in
>compounds, cf. *moi-no- 'exchange' --> *kom-moini- 'common, shared'
>(Lat. communis, PGerm. *Ga-maini-), Lat. arma vs. inermis 'unarmed'.
Yes. What I have trouble with is seeing this as the result
of a phonetic development (soundlaw). The thematic vowel is
/e/ before unvoiced (including final) and /o/ before voiced,
independent of the stress. We have o-stems stressed on the
root as well as on the thematic vowel, both in the nominal
and verbal systems (*bhóros, *bhorós; *bhére-, tudé-). If
the thematic vowel is e/o when unstressed (as in *bhór-o-s,
*bhér-e-ti), what room is there for unstressed -i-? There is
only the possibility that unstressed thematic vowels which
appear as e/o were originally stressed, and had vr.ddhi of
the root vowel (which caused the accent to shift back): a
form like *bhér-e- would then come from original **bha:r-á-.
I believe that is indeed the explanation for barytone
e-grade thematic forms. But if we apply this rule
consistently, it seems as if the whole basis for unstressed
thematic vowels falls away: at that pre-stage of PIE, the
definition of the thematic vowel would have included
carrying the stress.
For the examples you give above, a non-phonological,
morphological explanation is readily available: denominal
adjectives from o-stems become i-stem adjectives. It would
be nice to know why, but it's a way to describe the facts.
There are of course other examples of *e/o- "replaced" by
*-i-, whch don't involve adjectives. Unfortunately, I don't
have the time now to discuss them now.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
miguelc@...