Syllabicity (yet again)

[CONNOLLY at LATTE.MEMPHIS.EDU]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

Leo spelled out one of his objections to Pat's analysis of 2.pl -te as
identical with 3.sg. -t, except for stress accent:

>> We both assume no more than one stress accent per word, don't we?  If so,
>> the problem is that it is at least *very* difficult to explain final _-e_ as
>> the result of stress accent on that syllable (and you have said that more
>> than once) if, at the same, *any* _e_ must be so explained (else it should
>> vanish, n'est-ce pas?).  And even if the augment is regarded as a prefix
>> added later in some languages, *bherete must then have had three syllables
>> with stress accent, else we should expect (in traditional terms) **_bhr.te_,
>> with weak ("zero") grade of the root and zero grade of the thematic vowel.
>> Instead, Greek _epherete_ and Skt. _abharatha_ 'ye carried' point to e-grade
>> of the root and of the thematic vowel.

>Pat responds:

>One of the phenomena I believe I have identified in early language is that
>the plural morpheme was, at one point, simply stress-accentuation.

How odd then that the plural veb forms are not identical to singular ones
escept for the accent.  Ditto nouns.

>It would make our lives easier if we could assume no more than one stress
>accent per wood but I would not rule out a secondary stress-accent in a case
>like _a{'}bharatha{"???}.

Neither would I.

>Yes, I believe that vowel retention is generally a function of stress-accent
>but I find the explanation that *bherete "had three syllables with
>stress-accent" ununderstandable in terms of what I think of as
>stress-accent.

I'm not claiming any such thing.  But you have made a connection between the
retention of _e_ and stress accent at whatever level.  How is 2.pl. *_bherete_
possible in your theory unless it has three stress accents, quod Deus avertat?

[Leo's questioning of Pat's identification of -t, -te as 'member of tribe'
omitted]

>Pat responds:

>As to one of your points, I do not believe that earliest IE allowed a 3rd p.
>inanimate subject of a non-stative verb; hence, no -*t referring to an
>inanimate subject. Only animates "do things" which is not illogical if you
>associate agentivity with intention.

How so, if you are also claiming that PIE was ergative?  In ergative languages,
the morphological subject of an agent-patient sentence (barring "antipassive"
or the like) is precisely the patient, not the agent.

>I also believe that the IE reflexes of T{H}O properly (originally) refer
>only to animate entities; a similar form, T{?}O (IE *dV) referred properly
>to inanimate objects, and is the basis for neuters in -*d.

We should then expect the two to be kept distinct, especially with primary
endings: -ti contrasting with *-di.  But it doesn't happen.

>Regarding -*t and -*te, I do not believe that any grammatical morpheme in IE
>can originally have had the form -*C since I believe that all grammatical
>morphemes are originally grammaticalized -*Ce (at a minimum) non-grammatical
>morphemes. On this basis, both -*t and -*te must derive from earlier -*tV.
>In the absence of evidence to differentiate them, I assume a unitary origin.

They have different meanings.  The null hypothesis should therefore be that
they are distinct, even if you are unable to find a phonetic distinction.
Beliefs about the shape of free morphemes have nothing to do with the case.

>For *te-w-to-, although we would both acknowledge -*to, I am not going to be
>able to persuade you that a morpheme *te- could be the basis to which a
>collective morpheme -*w was added --- in a paragraph or two because you are
>unwilling to look beyond IE where *CeC roots are the general rule. It is my
>belief that every IE *CeC root can potentially be analyzed into *CV + *CV,
>and that these monosyllabic morphemes are recognizable is some early
>languages: e.g. Egyptian <t>, 'loaf', is cognate with IE -*dV, neuter
>formant.

You're right: you can't convince me.  But not because I have any preconceived
ideas about root shapes in PIE (not that I know of any *roots* that are that
short).  The problem is that your semantics are simply beyond the pale of
anything that could be called linguistic *science*.  Looking beyond PIE won't
change that.

Leo

Leo A. Connolly                         Foreign Languages & Literatures
connolly at latte.memphis.edu              University of Memphis