Syllabicity (yet again)

[Patrick C. Ryan]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

Dear Leo and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: <CONNOLLY at LATTE.MEMPHIS.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 1999 1:50 AM

>> Pat then responded:

>> Leo, I simply do not understand your point. Could you spell it out a
>> little more completely?

>Leo answered:

> 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.

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{"???}.

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.

<snip all the tsk's>

> But this gets us back to the original point: what earthly reason do you have
> for claiming that 3sg. -t and 2pl. -te are originally a morpheme meaning
> 'member of the tribe'?  You have *said* so, and claimed that *teu-to-
> (better:  *te-w-to-) represents an extended form of the root; but where's the
> evidence?  (One might also ask why -t appears with *inanimate* subjects; were
> they members too?)  If you can present no evidence, I can just as well claim
> that the two items were always separate entities and had no shared meaning
> whatsoever.  If I am right, the problem disappears.  I hate to use the
> argumentum ex auctoritate, since it has no logical force, but my version *is*
> the standard one; if you want to claim something else, it behooves you to
> come up with the evidence.  (And please don't just refer us to your website;
> it must be short enough to summarize in a screenful or so.)

Pat responds:

Well, it is difficult to summarize what is scattered over 8 million bytes
but I can try.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In a nutshell, I believe the *te- of *te-w-to represents an earlier *T[H]O
because, for example, of its reflexes in Egyptian as <t>, which, I believe,
allows specification of the vowel as *O.

To save you exasperation, both IE *d and *t show up as <t> in Egyptian
**when derived for earlier *T{H/?}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)