Re: Finnish KASKA

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <miguelc@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 12:43 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Finnish KASKA


> 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.

***

I think it is obvious that this is th approach I would favor.


Patrick

***
>
> 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@...
>
>