From: Torsten
Message: 65149
Date: 2009-09-29
>In which model do you mean?
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > I have a copy of that paper, which I should probably
> > > > > revisit. I agree the Old PIE thematic vowel was */a/, and I
> > > > > believe this was preserved as */a/ in later PIE in heavy
> > > > > syllables in non-verbal forms. For example Lat.
> > > > > <falx> 'sickle', Sicel <zagkle:>, Liguro-Latin <daculum>,
> > > > > Gallo-Rom. dial. <dal>, <daille>, etc. (by dissimilation
> > > > > from *dalklom vel sim.) have what I regard as original /a/
> > > > > in the noun *dHalgH-s, *dHalgH-os, etc. corresponding to
> > > > > the verbal root *dHelgH-.
> > >
> > > Very poor example on my part since it depends on poorly
> > > attested Sicel and Ligurian. A better one is *da'k^ru-
> > > /*dak^ro'- 'tear'.
> > >
> > > > I hadn't thought of that, but it makes a lot of sense.
> > > > This is what I thought happened to cause ablauting paradigms:
> > > >
> > > > PPPIE *a: > PPIE -é:-/´-o:-/-Ø-´ > PIE -é-/´-o(:)-/-Ø-´
> > > > PPPIE *i: > PPIE -éI-/´-i:-/-i-´ > PIE -éI-/´-oI-/-i-´
> > > > PPPIE *u: > PPIE -óU-/´-u:-/-u-´ > PIE -éU-/´-oU-/-u-´
> > > >
> > > > where the last stage is generalization from stems in /a/ in
> > > > order to achieve ablauting paradigms (under Semitic
> > > > influence, as claimed by Vennemann?). Short /a/ would survive
> > > > such changes.
> > >
> > > Yes. I have no satisfactory theory of ablaut (since there is
> > > remodelling all over the place in attested languages), but I
> > > doubt that we need to posit shifting from one type of accent to
> > > another. The actual PIE accent was complex, as hinted by the
> > > way the Rig-Veda represents it.
> >
> > I must have explained myself badly. I am not positing accent
> > type shifting, only showing what I think happened to the 3 PPPIE
> > vowels /a/, /i/ and /u/ in tonic, post-tonic and pre-tonic
> > position. Mayby I should write it like this:
> >
> > PPPIE -á:-/´-a:-/-a:-´ > PPIE -é:-/´-o:-/-Ø-´
> > PPPIE -í:-/´-i:-/-i:-´ > PPIE -éI-/´-i:-/-i-´
> > PPPIE -ú:-/´-u:-/-u:-´ > PPIE -óU-/´-u:-/-u-´
> >
> > and then, by analogy
> >
> > PPIE -é:-/´-o:-/-Ø-´ > PIE -é-/´-o(:)-/-Ø-´
> > PPIE -éI-/´-i:-/-i-´ > PIE -éI-/´-oI-/-i-´
> > PPIE -óU-/´-u:-/-u-´ > PIE -éU-/´-oU-/-u-´
> >
> > (sorry for all the P's, I needed three stages)
>
> No original */i:/ survives.
> Can you explain Greek <tri:'bo:> 'I rub', 2nd aor. pass.Greek is not my strong suit, but this one I think I can handle by means of another rule I proposed; see the discussion starting in
> <etri'be:n> with short /i/?
> Greek turns */ih2/ into /ia/ (feminines corresponding to SanskritI don't deny the existence of laryngeals.
> -i:) and */ih3/ into /io/ (<bios> 'life', originally a root-noun
> *gWih3-s).
> I can only explain this by assuming survival of orig. /i:/, with...
> reduced grade in the aor. pass. by analogy after verbs with full
> grade in /ei/. Not very satisfactory.
>Let's just say it looks like a dimorphism. 'Cubism' looks like a dimorphism too, given other -isms, but that doesn't imply it's from OE.
> > > My new strategy is to address one word at a time. I
> > > find 'hunger' very important.
> >
> > Me too. As a matter of fact I'm rather peckish now. Erh, which
> > word were you thinking of?
>
> Gothic <hu:hrus>, Gmc. *hun,hruz, beside OHG <hungar> (/a/-stem,
> sometimes /u/-stem) and the rest, Gmc. *hun,graz, implying
> Proto-Gmc. (before the shifts) *kn.'kru-, *kn.kro'-. This is like
> *da'k^ru-, *dak^ro'- 'tear' (again Gmc. has both, and the /a/-stem
> tends to get contaminated with the /u/-stem). To me this looks
> like an archaic PIE dimorphism, so I would argue against 'hunger'
> being a loan from outside IE.
> I haven't decided whether 'hunger' represents *kenk- as the EWbb.Alternation -an-/-un- and it doesn't follow Verner? I'm getting suspicious.
> say, or a reduplicated formation like Grk. <ka'khrus> or
> <de'ndron>, from *k(^)er-(?).
> > > > > And while I may not be able to disprove the notion of-a- would shine through, and Pokorny would sift pre-ablauters from substraters. But that doesn't answer you question, of course.
> > > > > ablauting PIE-speakers overrunning earlier non-ablauting
> > > > > speakers, I find it hard to believe that the same scenario
> > > > > occurred exactly the same way in different areas,
> > > >
> > > > AFAI can see, all we need to assume to make that scenario
> > > > work is that at a certain time the hearth of the nomad
> > > > attacks developed ablaut.
> > > >
> > > > > and that the pre-IE substrate was always insulated from the
> > > > > ablauting Hochsprache by this Niedersprache.
> > > >
> > > > ?? Who said that?
> > >
> > > It would follow from the scenario you suggested, since the
> > > ablauting nomads would not directly conquer any
> > > non-IE-speakers, only non-ablauting IE-speakers who had
> > > already absorbed the substraters.
> >
> > Not necessarily, they might have left some 'bald spots' where
> > non-IE speakers survived, only to be wiped out by the ablauters.
>
> Can we identify any bald spots, or would later leveling have acted
> like Rogaine?
> > > The real problem here is that the words with /a/ seldom showA solution like that in the *trib- case?
> > > the "upper-class" variants with /e/ and /o/.
> > Class VI 'draw' vs. class I 'drive', perhaps (all of class VI
> > strong verbs are best explained as PPGmc -a-/-a:-/-a:-/-a- >
> > PGmc -a-/-o:-/-o:-/-a-), Engl. grab vs OIc grípa, Engl. wag vs.
> > OIc víkja "move"? Futher the OIc. class III verb exceptions
> > gjalda "pay", gjalla "shout", hjálpa "help", skjálfa "tremble",
> > skjalla "scold" with present root vowel /a(:)/ for /i/ (< PIE -é-
> > before R). Other than that note the alternation -eu-/-u:- in most
> > of the class II verbs vs. OE scu:fan, OHG su:fan; that
> > alternation is of the same PIE/PPIE type as the -a-/-e- you were
> > looking for. Note how large the -u:- subclass is in Dutch, as
> > expected, I'm not convinced it grew later.
> >
> > Note also that some of the class II -u:C- subclass have -uCC-
> > geminated counterparts: OHG su:f-, Engl. sup, sip, Schrijver's
> > *dubb- etc, Sw class III dimpa, damp,
> > http://ordnet.dk/ods/opslag?id=437209
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_strong_verb
>
> I can't give a quick answer to the <scu:fan> business, or the
> geminates.