Syllabicity (yet again)

[Patrick C. Ryan]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

Dear Leo and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: <CONNOLLY at LATTE.MEMPHIS.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 1999 2:34 PM

>> Pat responded:

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

Leo objected:

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

Pat responds:

Sometimes I believe you are merely pulling my leg. The phonomenon I think I
detected in early language has nothing to do with singular or plural verbal
inflections, which are much later.

The data I think that may support this hypothesis are the different forms of
the (e.g.) IE verb for momentary and durative: durative *'CeC(V) and
momentary *C0'CV (Lehmann 1974:186). Since early transitive verbal roots can
be analyzed as *CV (object) + *CV (verbal idea), a pluralization of the
verbal idea indicates repetition leading to perfectivity; the pluralization
of the object indicates multiple objects leading to an interpretation of
imperfectivity.

<snip>

Pat continued:

>> 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.

Leo objected:

> 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?

Pat responds:

Then why write "had three syllables with stress-accent"? Spell out what you
mean to say so that I will not have occasion to misinterpret it.

There can be many explanations for the retention of the principally
stress-unaccented vowels as you well know. The likeliest is that the period
during which lack of stress-accent caused zero-grade stem forms had passed.
Another: the necessity for differentiation of 3rd sing and 2nd pl. overrode
normal patterns (if still operational). Etcetera.

 <snip>

Leo, on another subject:

> 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.

Pat responds:

Are you just trying to create confusion? There is no law that in an ergative
language any agreement markers on the verb *must* refer to the patient.

Pat continued:

>> I also believe that the IE reflexes of T{H}O (IE *tV) 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.

Leo replied:

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

Pat responds:

If the athematic primary and secondary endings referred to the ergative (in
an ergative context) or the nominative (in an accusative context), i.e.
where agentially referential, there would obviously be no need for an
inanimate *-d(i). The only traces I see in IE of a reference to the patient
in IE inflections is in the element *-dh(V)- occurring in the middle (PL
T[?]SA, 'body, self').

Pat continued:

>> 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.

Leo objected:

> 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.

Pat rejoins:

Oh, yes but they do. And please, let us not get into another sterile
discussion of null hypotheses, for which five linguists evince six opinions.

Pat continued:

>> 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.

Leo answered:

> 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.

Pat responds:

Semantics is in the eye of the beholder. For a look at what I believe are
reasonable semantic relationships, see
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/ProtoLanguage-Monosyllables.htm#T
?O

Pat

PATRICK C. RYAN (501) 227-9947; FAX/DATA (501)312-9947 9115 W. 34th St.
Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803 and PROTO-RELIGION:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/indexR.html "Veit
ek, at ek hekk, vindga meipi, nftr allar nmu, geiri undapr . . . a ~eim
meipi er mangi veit hvers hann af rstum renn." (Havamal 138)