"syllabicity"

[CONNOLLY at LATTE.MEMPHIS.EDU]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

Pat replied to Jens (aka "someone"), a few days ago:

>>>>>> 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.

Jens identified himself:

>> 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,

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.

But that's not at all what you said, Pat!  You claimed then that the
*existence* ot the -e was of no consequence, since we could explain it as the
product of stress accentuation.  Having been shown by several people that your
analysis will not work, you now say that the existence of the vowel does
matter, only its quality does not.  Your statements are not compatible.

Leo

Leo A. Connolly                         Foreign Languages & Literatures
connolly at latte.memphis.edu              University of Memphis