"syllabicity"

[Patrick C. Ryan]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

Dear Rich and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: Rich Alderson <alderson at netcom.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 1999 5:14 PM

<snip>

>> Unless it contrasts with another vowel, which produces a *semantic*
>> difference, I believe it is correct to say that the phone is not phonemic.

> Phonemic vowels are not defined only in contrast to other phonemic vowels,
> but in contrast to non-vowels as well.  Thus, only if there were no
> obstruents of any kind in a language might one be entitled to argue that a
> vowel was not phonemic (but one might also wish to deny the status of
> language to such an object of wonder).

> Further, your definition of "semantic" is sorely lacking if it excludes the
> meanings associated with so-called "grammatical morphemes", a seemingly _ad
> hoc_ definition constructed only to allow you to deny the phonemic status of
> vowels you would like to ignore.

Pat responds:

Well, I would term dog/cat different semantically. You seem to me to be
suggesting that dog/dog's are different semantically. If you had to
distinguish between the two kind of "semantic" differences, what word would
you use to differentiate the second situation from the first?

>>> I think he violates an even more fundamental rule: If a segment is opposed
>>> to zero, it exists!

>>Differo, ergo sum.

>>But, Lehmann would accord segmenticity to syllabicity, I am relatively
>>certain.

> But he explicitly denies it!

Pat admits:

I have already granted this point in a posting to Leo & List. Lehmann could
have expressed himself a little better on this point --- perhaps a case of
slicing atoms vs. slicing slices.

>>> 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!

>> 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(i) and *-"te.

> The difference between *-t and *-te is best explained by the fact that they
> are two different lexical items, morphemes meaning "3rd singular" and "2nd
> plural" respectively.  Anything else does violence to any reasonable
> reconstruction of PIE based on the actual data.

Pat responds:

Hopefully we can try to integrate insights that may have been obtained in
languages prior to and outside of PIE to PIE questions.  Taking into
consideration the fact that every "pronominal" form we know, **when**
subjected to additional analysis, reveals a nominal form that is neutral
with regard to person so that we must assume that the personal assignment of
the pronoun is arbitrary, and bearing in mind the stress-accentual
differences in the verbal paradigm between singular and plural inflections,
and considering IE *to (better *te/o), I do not believe that any violence is
done to any reasonable reconstruction of IE if we assume that:

1) IE had a morpheme *te/o of non-personally restricted semantic range,
which

2) could be employed in a number of personal contexts:

     a) 2nd p. s. pronoun: *te

     b) 2nd p. pl. inflection: -*te

     c) 3rd p. s. inflection: *-t(V)

     d) demonstrative: -*to (**te/o)

To ascribe individual origins to each of these employments of what I
maintain is one morpheme is difficult since how could they be distinguished?
They all can be referred to *te/o.

And even these employments of this versatile morpheme do not exhaust its
presences in IE, for it occurs also in collectives -*tV, and as expanded
verbal in *te(:)u-.

To paraphrase, you're talking a major morpheme here.

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)