Re: IE thematic wovels

On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 02:16:37, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
wrote:

>>[mcv:]
>>- 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!

So how do you explain *wlkWós (> *wl'kWos) and *tudáti?

>>- 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.

This is ridiculous: why should *-e analogically spread as *-o-?

>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 plain to see that the original state of affairs was:

*-o:, *-es, *-et
*-ome(s), *-ete(s), *-ont,

which was later partially regularized in a number of languages.

>It is not a common pattern and only occurs here
>and there.

Exactly my point: it only occurs with the thematic vowel.

>>- 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.
>
>[...]
>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??

The o-stems are substantially different from all other stems in the
following respects:

1) Gsg. in *-osio
2) Ab.sg. in *-o:d (other declensions do not have a separate Abl.)
3) Plural built on *-oi- (Npl. *-oi or *-o:s < *-o-es; Lpl. *-oi-su,
Ipl. *-o:i-(h1)s, DAb.pl. maybe *-oi-os).
4) Bare stem (Voc sg.) ends in *-e, not *-o.
5) Immobile stress (either on the root or on the thematic vowel).

>>- why the thematic vowel is sometimes added to a nominal or verbal stem in
>>zero grade (*wlkW-os, tudáti verbs), sometimes to
>>a gun.a root (*bhér-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.

What about the type *bhorós (as formally and semantically distinct
from the type *bhóros)?

>>- 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.

It is an assumption, which is backed up by the fact that the thematic
vowel, both in the verb and the noun, behaves identically and in an
idiosyncratic way (esp. vis-à-vis Ablaut) found nowhere else in
Indo-European.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...