"syllabicity"

[Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen]

On Wed, 19 May 1999, Patrick C. Ryan wrote:

>>> 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.

 [I (Jens) wrote:]

>>  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,

[Pat replied:]

> If anyone has disputed that the *-e makes a difference, it is not I.
> My point was, that you could just as easily notate the form as -*tV
> since there is no contrasting -**ta or **-to.

You seem to have a short memory! As the squashed quotations from the
_same_ mail of yours show, you _did_ derive *-t and *-te from the same
underlying form, and it just is wrong to give that form the notation
*-tV in the case where the is no vowel.

Jens