Re: IE thematic wovels

On Fri, 30 Nov 2001 23:24:31, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
wrote:

>Of the remainder, there is only Armenian and Tocharian. I think
>I can provisionally accept Armenian, only by assuming that a
>genitive suffix hasn't simply been appended to the pre-existing
>genitive. As for Tocharian, since other IE case suffixes contain
>forms based on *bhi (a LOCATIVE postposition), its genitive singular
>in -epi which is clearly and ultimately derived from this locative,
>ironically only helps to prove _my_ point.

It has nothing to do with *-bhi. See Douglas Q. Adams, "Tocharian",
p. 140 (it is related to forms like Greek argu-phos "silverish", Lith.
anksty-bas "early-ish", Gothic bairht-ba "brightly").

>>Yes, the Etruscan genitive *is* a genitive. Who says differently?
>
>You did, by claiming that it derives from a dative via Beekes.

Read again what I wrote. The Etruscan *dative* is derived from the
*genitive* (+ locative): *-si + -i > Dat. -si. Gen *-si > -s.

>>Not for *bher-. The vary rare aorist with reduplication
>>generally has reduplicative vowel -i- (or -i:-) in Skt.,
>
>Alright, but where is the evidence showing the pattern you
>described [*bhr-ó-m, *bhr-é-s, *bhr-é-t, *bhr-ó-me, *bhr-é-te,
>*bhr-ó-nt]?? I'm stumped.

In Vedic, some 80 roots take this aorist (not <bhr> "to carry",
though: as I said, I used *bher- only as an example). E.g. (a)vidám
"I found" (*wid-ó-m), (a)dám "I gave" (*dh3-ó-m), (a)dhám "I put"
(*dHh1-óm), (a)sthám "I stood" (*sth2-ó-m), (a)sadám "I sat"
(*s[e]d-ó-m), (a)kradám "I cried out" (*k(W)rnd-ó-m), etc.

>>>I fail to understand what you're getting at.
>>
>>That the thematic vowel may cause lengthening of the [first vowel
>>of] the preceding word.
>
>Why must it be burdened upon me to explain away a rule that _you_
>invented?

Vrddhi in thematic formations is a well-known phenomenon. Read any
decent introduction to IE linguistics.

>>Well, so now you too analyze the form *-osyo as *-o-sy-o? In any
>>case, the final -o is *not* the thematic vowel.
>
>Now you're slipping back into nonsense again. I never said
>**-o-sy-o.

Yes, by claiming *-osyo contradicts the rule that the thematic vowel
is *-e in final position. That must mean that you analyze it as *-o-
(thematic vowel) -sy- (whatever) -o (thematic vowel).

>The thematic nouns have been reanalysed such that
>the nominative in *-os became viewed as *-o-s, yes. So the
>genitive may be analysed at this point as *-o-s-yo, with a
>thematic vowel *-o-, a genitive *-s (nb. *xwei-s) and a clarifying
>demonstrative *yo- affixed to the existing construct.

So this has no relevance whatsoever to whether the thematic vowel is
*-e in final position. Good.

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