Further on minimal pairs 3 [was Re: PIE e/o Ablaut]

[proto-language]

Dear Stanley and IEists:

  ----- Original Message -----
> From: Stanley Friesen
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 6:54 PM

[ moderator snip ]

  [SF]

> I do not perceive the difference between sooth and soothe as
> *inflectional*, I perceive it as *derivational*.  That is it is closer in
> effect to 'similar/similarity' than to 'hit/hits'.

> So, even if I accept you caveat, I would still treat 'sooth/soothe' as a
> minimal pair.  (In fact I barely even perceive these two words as related)!

  [PR]

I do think a case *might* be made in this case for derivational processes as a
kind of inflection but I will not quibble since I do think that derivation is a
more appropriate term for what is happening in 'sooth->soothe'.

Now, the question is, do you consider IE *e/o-Ablaut inflectional or
derivational?

  Pat

  PATRICK C. RYAN | PROTO-LANGUAGE at email.msn.com
  (501) 227-9947 * 9115 W. 34th St. Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA
  WEBPAGES: PROTO-LANGUAGE: http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/
  and PROTO-RELIGION:
  http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/indexR.html

  "Veit ec at ec hecc, vindgá meiði a netr allar nío,
  geiri vndaþr . . . a þeim meiþi, er mangi veit,
  hvers hann af rótom renn." (Hávamál 138)