Uralic and IE

[Glen Gordon]

ME (GLEN):
  "We may have this, we may have that but aside from even more
  evidence on your side..." - this is basically what you're saying.
  It's much simpler to say that the neuter was generally marked with
  *-d unless the word already ended with another declensional suffix,
  isn't it?

MIGUEL:
  It's much simpler, but unfortunately the neuter was *never* marked
  with *-d in nouns and adjectives.

You can't assert that. I'm objecting to your abuse of absolute terms
like "never" - some kind of logical proof is needed.

ME (GLEN):
  Hypotheses built on hypotheses. There is no **-(n)k in IE.

MIGUEL:
  Not sure.  There is in Greek (lynx).

Come on, Miguel. First, why does it end in -nx instead of **-nk? Are
y'sure it's not from IE *-nk-s? Second, even if we can say that the *-s
is not there (now), how do we know that it couldn't have underwent the
same process as *-rs > *-r? Third, I thought you were trying to tell me
that _inanimate_ nouns are zero-marked. This idea creates more problems
than it solves. Doesn't Occhim's Rasor hold weight anymore?

ME (GLEN):
  Endings of the sort *-n(s), *-nt(s) and *-r(s) all end in *-s (very
  badly done). Similarly, the heteroclitic and pronominal forms with
  *-d derive from *-d. Simple, no?

MIGUEL:
  Simple, but again there *are* no heteroclitic forms with *-d.
  What we have is a couple of *-t's (from neuter nt-stems, I say).
  I haven't got the time to check all the facts, but on p. 176 of
  Beekes Comparative IE, there's an interesting table, listing the
  possible PIE consonant/sonorant stems:

  n.  -s  -r/n  -l/n  -n  -i  -u
  mf. -s  -r    -l    -n  -i  -u  -k  -t  -nt  -m  -H1  -H2

  (Where neuter l/n-stems consist of one word only, and n-stems are
  mostly -mn).

  There is not a shred of evidence that the neuter nom/acc.
  forms should be derived from *-sd, *-rd/*-nd/*-ld, *-id or *-ud.

I've obviously confused everyone a little. First, whether the
heteroclitic stems end in *-t or *-d changes nothing since I've been
saying that there was no pronunciation contrasts in IE between *-t and
*-d (or *-dh). Second, to make very clear, I'm not saying that ALL
inanimate forms end in *-d. This seems to be the interpretation of the
moderator as well as you, Miguel. I'm saying that much can be explained
with *-d but some of the inanimate forms happen to end in other
declensional suffixes, in which case the *-d is not added because that
would put the nominative endings together with other declensional
suffixes (bad!).

Thus here's my explanation so far of the inanimate:
     -s, -i, -u     - declensional suffixes, no *-d added
     -r/n, -l/n     - n-stem with *-d (*-nd > *-r)
     -n             - non-existant

And of the animate:
     -s               - animate *-s (duh!)
     -r, -l, -n,
     -H2, -t, -nt     - originally -Cs
     -m, -i, -u       - declensional suffixes, no *-s added
     -k               - non-existant
     -H1              - non-existant and probably impossible
                      I currently have a hunch that mediofinal *H1,
                      a glottal stop, had become *H2/H3 long ago as
                      in this possible case:
                            *-?u > IE *-h<w> [1ps perfective]

MIGUEL:
  On the other hand, it *is* interesting to speculate about what
  might have caused the heteroclitics, what happened to neuter -k,
  -t, -nt, -m stems, and what the laryngeal stems are all about.

A neuter *-k is not reconstructable. All there are are fragments here
and there like your isolated examples of <asrk> (Hittite eshar, no -k at
all) and <lynx>. AFAIK, there's no need to reconstruct *-k at an IE
level.

MODERATOR:
  I'm a little confused:  If *-t# > *-H_1# and *-k# > *-H_2#, what do
  you mean by *-t and *-k in your table above?  Or are all of those to
  be read as *-t-, *-k-, ktl.?

So am I. The time-frame doesn't seem to be properly laid out. If the
Greek -k-'s as in <gyne:/gynaikes> are suppose to be Miguel's evidence
for an Indo-Anatolian *-k that on the other hand is supposed to have
changed to a later *-H2 that Greek is descendant from, I think we should
all be thouroughly confused by this point. If Greek /k/ is just some
kind of reflex of *H2 then all we have is evidence for *-H2 (or even
*-H3) which says nothing in the end (but then why was it mentioned...?).

--------------------------------------------
Glen Gordon
glengordon01 at hotmail.com