"syllabicity"

[Patrick C. Ryan]

Dear Leo and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: <CONNOLLY at LATTE.MEMPHIS.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 1999 12:42 PM

>> 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.

>Leo objected:

> 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.

Pat responds:
Leo, I simply do not understand your point. Could you spell it out a little
more completely?

I hope I have been consistent. In IE, I believe there was a morpheme that
can be notated as [-*te/o] or [-*tV] which is the common factor in both
these forms; in the one case, reduced by foregoing stress-accentuation to
[-*t]. If you are relying on the Sanskrit injunctive for your point, surely
it is not unreasonable to think that the vowel of the 2nd p. pl. might be
been retained or analogously restored to maintain a differentiation with the
3rd p. sing.?

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)