IE pers.pron. (dual forms)

[Patrick C. Ryan]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

Dear Jens and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen <jer at cphling.dk>
Sent: Saturday, May 22, 1999 7:22 PM

> On Fri, 21 May 1999, Patrick C. Ryan wrote:

>Jens previouysly:

>>> So, for the dual *-e, it _would_ be a problem for you if it did not
>>> have a laryngeal, as sva'sa:rau indicates it did not.

>> Pat responded:

>> Beekes looks at the same data, and on pg. 194, reconstructs -*He. Why is
>> he wrong?

>Jens continued:

> It is not _very_ wrong to posit *-H1e, seeing that the difference of
> this over plain *-e is so small. But an ablaut interplay between
> full-grade *-H1e and zero-grade *-H1 is unacceptable for the reasons I
> have stated: It would make the nom.-acc. dual a strong case with rightward
> accent-and-ablaut movement, which is never found. It would not allow
> Brugmann's length in IIr., but that _could_ be analogical. And, addding
> another, if the thematic form was really *-o- + consonant-stem *-H1e or
> *-e (parallel with the nom.pl. *-o:s from *-o- + consonant-stem *-es), the
> option *-o-H1e is excluded by the acute tone of Balto-Slavic and Greek in
> this form. To be sure, Beekes also excludes *-o-e in favour of *-oH
> precisely on the basic of the Lithuanian acute, but in this point we
> differ in our understanding of the rules. If you are content to have some
> speaker on IE on your side, pick anyone you like; but if you want to have
> arguments to serve you with a criterion as to which one to choose (if
> any), ask both parties again.

Pat responds:

The point was that Bekkes, a trained IEist, does not feel that "sva'sa:rau"
indicates no laryngeal.

>> Pat responded earlier:

>>>> As for the genitive, I reconstruct *-s(V), with the final vowel falling
>>>> off due to stress-accent of a preceding syllable: "Ce/oC + sV ->
>>>> Ce/o-"Ce/os.

>> Jens asked:

>>> With accent shifting onto a vowel that was not there?

>> Pat responded:

>> Sorry, I should have written "Ce/oC(V) -> Ce/o-"Ce/os.

> That makes the vowel of the genitive "ending" a part of the preceding
> stem.

Pat answers:

Yes, that was my point.

Jens continued:

> If that is so, there will also appear a vowel before other endings
> that cause the accent to move from one vowel to the next. Then why does
> this not happen when the endings *-bhyos, *-bhis, *-su are added?

Pat responds:

If Beekes is to be believed, that are a number of inflectional patterns in
IE. This makes your question a bit tricky to answer untill we know the
circumstances. How about an example?

Jens continued:

> And in
> root nouns where the stem is identical with that of a radical verb (root
> present or root aorist), why does the vowel appear in the genitive *-os
> (*-es), but not when verbal endings are added? These problems evaporate if
> the stem is posited as consonant-final, and the gen. morpheme is *-os
> (*-es).

Pat responds:

I am dependent on Beekes for the most current viewson IE morphology. Why do
you not give us an example of this phenomenon since Beekes does not.

On your second point, I am not sure there has to be a one-for-one
relationship between nominal and verbal endings.

Pat, previously:

>> I think one important factor that should be considered in these equations is
>> the example Beekes gives on p. 195 of Greek <o{'}sse>, 'pair of eyes', which
>> he derives from *ok{w}-iH{1} THROUGH *ok{w}-ye. We could, just as easily,
>> posit a dual in -y and forget about the laryngeal.

>> Jens wrote:

>>> In this particular case we could - for Greek. But not for Slavic oc^i
>>> (would have reduced i), nor for Arm. ac^'k' (would not be a-stem, gen.
>>> ac^'ac'). And especially it would not give Skt. -i: with length in the
>>> ntr.du. of cons.-stems.

>> Pat responds:

>> I do not have the reference books here to substantiate this comment but,
>> if I understand Beekes correctly, OCS would not have oc{^}i but rather
>> oc{^}e{^}. Is that incorrect?

Jens responded:

> Yes and no. Slavic neuter consonant stems are few in kind, and their
> nom.-acc. dual regularly ends in -e^ which must be pure analogy with the
> o-stems. The dual of 'eye ' _is_ oc^i (also so given by Beekes 173), along
> with us^i 'two ears' a relic of the inherited form.

Pat responds:

Analogy to the rescue. What would linguists do without analogy and
laryngeals to explain anomalies?

Perhaps you can explain to me why oc{^}i could not derive from *ok{w}-ye?

>> Jens mentioned:

>>>>> *H2ner-y cannot give Gk. ane'r-e;

>> Pat responded:

>>>> In view of Gk. o{'}sse, why not?

>> Jens responded:

>>> There is no such rule. The /y/ would syllabify and yield **ane'r-i.
>>> That's what happened in the loc.sg. *p at 2-te'r-i > Gk. dat. pate'ri, Skt.
>>> loc.  pita'ri.

>> Pat responded:

>> Not sure what you mean by "no rule". It is a process described on p. 195
>> of Beekes. Also, the dative has a different base form: -*(H)ey, which is
>> nothing more than the well-known *Hey-, 'to go'.

Jens continued:

> Beekes says no such thing, nor do I know of any basis on which he could
> have. The form of the IE dative is immaterial when we are talking about
> the fate of the IE locative.

Pat responds:

Sorry, missed your point.

>> Jens mentioned:

>>>>> u-stem *-u-y cannot give Skt. -u:.

>> Pat asked:

>>>> Why cannot su:nu{'}- + -y yield su:nu:{'} with compensatory lengthening?

>> Jens responded:

>>> There is no such rule. In one instance, a stem amu- got segmented off
>>> by a funny analogy in the inflection of the pronoun asau 'that one'
>>> (acc.sg.M amu-m) and was used in the formation of a pl. with /-y/, this
>>> giving ami:, not **amu:.

>> Pat responded:

>> I think it is dangerous to assume that combinatory rules have acted
>> identically at different periods, do you not?

Jens objected:

> Sure, but you were using completely unknown rules.

Pat rejoinds:

Since when is compensatory lengthening "unknown"?

>> Jens asked:

>>>>> What _is_ the basis of your decision in favour of *-y ??

>> Pat answered:

>>>> The majority of the attested forms, there being no /i/ in IE..

>> Jens responded:

>>> For most positions, you are right: The original difference between the
>>> morphophonemes /i/ and /y/ are neutralized almost across the board and can
>>> therefore be represented by one phoneme. However, that is not the point
>>> we're discussing; we're arguing about the presence or absence of a
>>> laryngeal in the ntr.du., remember? And in this point Skt. yuge' 'two
>>> yokes' passes judgment, for this form is sandhi resistent ("pragrhya") and
>>> so _must_ have ended in a laryngeal.

>> Pat responded:

>> Sorry, I cannot accept the idea that laryngeals still functioning in
>> Sanskrit made yuge{'} sandhi-resistant.

> It is a descriptive fact,

Pat rejoinds:

Your idea of a "fact" and mine are obviously totally different. That yuge{'}
may be sandhi-resistant could be a fact. That the cause is your convenient
laryngeal, is not!

> well established before the advent of laryngeal
> analysis and in possession of a perfectly adequate and phonetically
> natural explanation since Kuiper's ingenuity was invested in it.

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)