Miguel to Knut:

>>As far as I know, definite ajectives in Germanic, is marked by an
>>en/on-exstention of the stem, not e/o.
>
>Ditto in Tocharian.

Okay, Miguel, if it's "ditto" in Tocharian, then you just
contradicted your whole point about IE definiteness. Are
feeling okay?

>To make a lot of sense, a theory about the thematic vowel should
>explain in detail the peculiar behaviour of the PIE thematic vowel,
>including:

Unfortunately, Miguel hasn't thought too deeply about how my
theory explains all this... Let's go through this list:

>- why it is nearly always resistant to zero grade (and why it
>seems to have -i- as zero grade when it isn't).

The zero-grade was caused by the loss of unstressed vowels,
including final vowels. Therefore, quite clearly, we should
see "resistance" of thematic stems since they are to be dated
AFTER the development of the zero-grade!

>- why it has a peculiar ablaut pattern, found nowhere else in
>PIE phonology (to wit, -o- before voiced segments, -e- before
>voiceless or zero).

This pattern proves nothing either way. It's obvious that it's
a later pattern since, as I've already stated quite clearly, the
thematic vowel seen in verbs most likely derives from the
analogical spread of *-e seen in the original 3ps. There too,
we have *bher-o-mes and *bher-e-tes but surely anyone can see that
the original state of affairs was more regular than this at some
point in time! It is not a common pattern and only occurs here
and there.

>- why the thematic declension differs substantially from all the
>other nominal declensions, and in particular, why it shows a number of
>parallels with the pronominal declension.

But pronominal stems are thematic (eg: *me, *twe, *se, *to, *e,
etc.). Your point is...? We can't rely on the accentual system
of thematic stems (mostly acrostatic) to be ancient because it
is defiantly regular in contrast to the unintuitive alternation
of accent seen in athematic stems like *k^wo:n (gen. *k^un�s).
Understandably then, the regularized acrostatic accent cannot be
ancient.

So, still, we must ask: What do you define to be "substantially
different" (and also relevant) about thematic declension that
conclusively shows that it should be interpreted according to your
view?? How does the above points against show anything to your
favour?

>- why the thematic vowel is sometimes added to a nominal or verbal stem in
>zero grade (*wlkW-os, tud�ti verbs), sometimes to
>a gun.a root (*bh�r-e- type), and sometimes to a root in o-grade
>or lengthened grade.

It only shows that the popularity of forming nouns and adjectives
in *-os started at a time when the accent was already "mobile"
and when acrostatic regularisation was happening. The zero-grade
forms conform to the most ancient pattern concerning accent and
vocalism. Guna-grade forms are later formations, after the
acrostatic regularization (accent regularized on the initial
syllable) had occured, introducing more confusion concerning
proper vocalism.

For instance, *wlkWos dates to a time BEFORE acrostatic
regularization too effect because one can reconstruct a MIE form
without problems (**welkW�se) due to its conservative vocalism.

>- why the same element performs such different functions in
>nouns and adjectives (deverbatives, denominatives) and verbs
>(thematic indicative, subjunctive), and what may have been the
>original common denominator.

Your analytical skills are faltering. It is an _assumption_ that
the thematic vowel of both verbs and nouns have the same origins.
You must _prove_ that they do, and unfortunately, you offer no
such credible proof. The thematic vowel seems to serve such
differing functions between nouns and verbs that to unify all
instances of it as derivable from a demonstrative stem *e
ignores the poignant reality of the situation in favour of
amateurish preference for mere phonetics. This is typical wild
etymologizing at its worst.


- love gLeN



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp