"syllabicity"

[Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen]

On Thu, 13 May 1999 CONNOLLY at latte.memphis.edu wrote:

> Someone wrote:

>>>>> Thus, since even an extremist monovocalic IE phonology would oppose a 3sg
>>>>> in *-t to a 2pl in *-te, it must have a phoneme /e/.  This of course does
>>>>> not detract from the stimulating effect of the book - just look at us!

> Pat replied:

>>>> With the best attempt to see this, I confess I cannot.  The difference
>>>> between *-t and -*te is simply explained by paying attention to the
>>>> stress-accentuation: *"-t(e) and *-"te.

Pardon my gate-crashing, but I was the "someone", and perhaps I should be
clearer: There is no disputing that the PIE thematic verb formed a 3sg
injunctive *bhe'r-e-t and a 2pl injunctive *bhe'r-e-te; if you prefer
imperfects, you may add the augment in any form you think it had in PIE.
The fact will remain that one form is an *-e longer than the other,
everything else being the same. That extra *-e makes a difference all by
itself and so is phonemic, even under an (erroneous) analysis that
accepts only one vowel for PIE.

Jens