Syllabicity

[Patrick C. Ryan]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

Dear Leo and IEists:

----- Original Message -----
From: <CONNOLLY at LATTE.MEMPHIS.EDU>
Sent: Monday, May 24, 1999 5:31 PM

> Pat wrote, in response to my rude remarks about kitty litter:

>> But more seriously, yes, I would also claim that these markers had semantic
>> meaning. The IE plural morpheme -*s, I believe, derives from early *s{h}o,
>> 'clan, herd'. This means that its addition caused a compound of the form N +
>> 'clan/herd = animate group'. So the result would have been, in our
>> example, something like 'cat-group'. Now my use of "semantic" may be
>> original (not necessarily better, of course), but I claim that CAT in 'a
>> cat' and CAT in 'cats = cat-group' are *not* semantically different only
>> differently employed. Now I know you will not like this employment of
>> "semantic" so tell me what terminology you prefer to make the distinction I
>> am attempting to make between core meanings (dog/cat) and derived meanings
>> (cat/cats).

Pat  responds:

I did not consider "kitty litter" rude only humorous.

Leo continued:

> Several remarks:

> 1.  It is not clear that there actually was an "IE plural morpheme -*s",
> although there may have been.  But all that we find are morphemes meaning
> "nominative+plural", "dative+plural" etc.  It's not clear that these are
> actually divisible, as e.g. the various morphemes of agglutinating languages
> such as Turkish.  But let this one pass for now.

Pat responds:

It is also certainly not clear that they are not actually divisible.
Actually, the accusative plural is for me the strongest indication since,
accusative -*m + *-s is transformed into -*ns  (apical before an apical for
labial).

Leo continued:

> 2.  There are a few established terminologies.  The plural morpheme of
> English (we definitely do have one) can be called "bound" because it occurs
> only when connected to the "free" morpheme of a root.  It can be said to have
> "grammatical meaning", or be called a "grammatical morpheme".  There are not
> my terms; they're standard.  What's not standard is to say that plural -s
> does not have "semantic" meaning, since (in normal usage) *all* meaning is
> "semantic".

Pat responds:

I am well aware of this usage and terminology.

>>Leo commented:

>>> First, the idea that the family words contain an agent suffix, though old,
>>> is without basis.

>> Pat surpisedly responded:

>> Now, this may be a case properly characterized as "weaseling". Obviously,
>> your "without basis" relies on the qualification "AGENT". I cannot believe
>> that you would believe that the IE words for 'father, mother, sister,
>> brother, etc.' *cannot* be analyzed as N/V + -*ter, suffix.  Now you may
>> wish to dispute whether -*ter in these cases is *agentive* but that puts you
>> in the rather dubious position of arguing that IE had, at least, **two**
>> suffixes: -*ter, agentive, and -*ter, meaning unknown, employed to mark
>> nuclear family members. Not a position I would care to defend!

Leo continued:

> But you must, if you speak English.  We have several morphemes which have
> merged as -er in English but maintain separate meanings:

> 1.  Agentive -er (speak + -er).  This is borrowed in several Germanic
> languages from Latin -a:rius.

> 2.  Implement -er (bind + -er).  Perhaps one in origin with the above;
> I'm not sure.

> 3.  Comparative -er (old + -er).  This had two forms in Proto-Germanic:
> -iz- and -az-, reflecting PIE -e/os- (note the ablaut).  The two have now
> merged.  The -iz-form is responsible for the umlaut in _elder_.

> 4.  We have a homonym -or in words of Latin origin such as _creator_.
> This suffix has agentive meaning.  Despite its separate origin and
> discrete spelling, a case could be made for including it under No. 1.

> And then of course, we have -er words which do *not* contain any of the
> above, such as _cider_ and _spider_.  So what is wrong with saying that the
> element seen in _father_, _mother_, _brother_, and _daughter_ (but not
> _sister_, where the -t- is a secondary development) is different from the
> agentive suffix?

Pat responds:

According to my dictionary, spider contains agentive -*ter; and cider is not
derived from IE. If IE did have triliteral roots, you might have a point.

Correction noted with regard to 'sister'.

However, I fail to see how the points you have presented relate meaningfully
to the point I am attempting to make.

I claimed above that -*ter, the common component of 'father, mother,
brother, daughter', is not coincidental but a regular component of basic
nuclear family terminology. On the basis of words like *g{^}en6-ter-
(procreator, father), I believe it likely that it should be interpreted as
an agentive. But even if it were not agentive -*ter, it is beyond the bounds
of reasonable scepticism to suppose that its multiple attestations in family
member terminology is not analyzable as a suffix.

>> Pat responded:

>> So far as I can remember, *p6te:{'}r is the only IE root listed in Pokorny
>> that has the form *C6CV:C (if you know of another, at least, admit it is
>> rare?). That, by itself, should alert us to the suspicion that something
>> unusual is going on here.

Leo answered:

> Indeed.  And it should tell us in particular that we are not dealing with the
> agentive suffix, since the alleged verbal root is rare or impossible.  Ah,
> but as in independent, indivisible *word* there would be no problem.

Pat rejoinds:

If we cultivate myopia, perhaps. But 'daughter' seems easily interpretable
as 'milker'; 'brother' as 'bearer'; and, of course, *g{^}en6-ter,
'biological father'. On the strength of this last pattern itself, I would
think the presumption would be to interpret nuclear family member
terminology agentively. On the basis of the many derived terms from *ma:-
(nursemaid), it is rather likely that *ma:te{'}r can be understood as
'nurser'. With this apparent pattern, it would be unlikely that *p6te{'}r is
not similarly analyzable.

Pat continued:

>> Secondly, if we analyze family member terminology as consisting of Root +
>> suffix (agentive or no), *p6- is a strangely formed IE root --- in fact, it
>> cannot be a Normalstufe. *p6- is listed as a zero-grade form of *pa:-, which
>> suggests that whatever *p6- in *p6te:{'}r comes from, it probably had the
>> earlier form *pe/oH-.

Leo commented:

> Problem: Pokorny's *pa:- means 'feed; pasture'.  Add an agent suffix to that
> and you get 'shepherd', not 'father'.  And this aside from the problem of the
> weak grade of the alleged root.

Pat responds:

Well, strange that you missed na{"}hren in his definition. Which means 'to
feed (animal, child); and failed to put that together with *pap(p)a,
'father, *food* (not animal feed!). If the nuclear family terminology under
consideration designated typical functions, 'feeder' for father certainly
would not be amiss.

And frankly, I am at a loss to see any problem with a reduced grade of the
root preceding a suffix (agentive -*ter), which normally takes the
stress-accent. Am I missing something?

<snip>

Pat continued:

>> This is a novel situation, and I have proposed a novel scenario to explain
>> it; sui generis, so, of course, unprovable. I would be interested to learn
>> how you propose to explain it.

Leo responded:

> It's a problem only if you insist on the agent suffix.  Nominal items show
> an astonishing variety of ablaut grades in clearly related, otherwise
identical
> forms.

>> [ Moderator's comment:
>>   The accent in *meH_2'te:r differs from than in *pH_2te:'r, doesn't it?
>>   --rma ]

Pat interjected:
Rich, if one compares Sanskrit ma:ta{'}r and pita{'}r, I confess I cannot
see a difference of stress-accent.

Leo wrote:

> Not in PIE.  Attic Greek has a rule by which oxytones with the pattern
> CV:CV:'C switched to CV:'CV:C.  Pre-Greek must have been *ma:te:'r.  The
> non-initial accent also shows in the operation of Verner's Law in German: OE
> _faeder_, _mo:dor_ from a form with suffix accent beside _bro:thar_ from a
> form with root accent.

> BTW, Pokorny derives says that _mother_ "beruht auf dem Lallwort _ma:_",
> which makes better sense anyway.

Pat, withdrawing:

I refuse to get into another futile discussion of Lallwo{"}rter. Actually,
one of the interseting arguments for monogenesis is the intriguing
similarity of <lallen> all over the world.

<snip>

Leo coninues on a different topic:

> I don't have Larry's dictionary.  But I'll say this point blank: what he
> gives is merely a characteristic of phonemes.  Morphemes must consist of one
> or more phonemes (despite the problem of "zero allomorphs").  It is because
> of this that phonemes are the smallest units capable of *signaling* meaning.
> But they are units of *sound*.  It might be helpful if you included Larry's
> *entire* comment, for what you're citing is simply *not* a definition of a
> phoneme.  See any manual of linguistics which actually discusses the things!

Pat, for Leo's edification:

phoneme . . . n. In many theories of phonology, a fundamental (often *the*
fundamental) unit of phonological structure, an abstract *segment* which is
one of a set of such segments in the phonological system of a particular
language or speech variety, ___often defined as 'the smallest unit which can
make a difference in meaning'___.

>>> Leo continued:

>>> As for ablaut, e:o ablaut is attested for traditional lengthened grade e:
>>> and for traditional "original" e: i.e. eH.  Beside Gk. _pate:r_ 'father' we
>>> find both _phra:to:r_ and _phra:te:r_ 'member of a clan' (orig. 'brother').
>>> And for Gothic _saian_ 'sow' < *seH- we find reduplicated preterite
>>> (originally perfect) _sai-so_ < _*se-soH-_.

>> Pat responded:

>> You have left out the accents: _phra:{'}to:r_ and _phra:{'}te:r_.  Now the
>> phonological environments are apparently identical, and there is no
>> grammatical difference between the two either. So, the "Ablaut" is
>> presumably a deliberate *secondary* device to provide some *semantic*
>> differentiation. Not the best example in my opinion -- a Greek example of
>> something like vrddhi.

Leo responded:

> I have no idea whether it was a deliberate anything.  All I know is that
> short e alternates with short o, and that the two traditional kinds of long
> e: alternate with long o:.  The "lengthened grade" variety also alternates
> with short e/o; the "natural long" ones deriving from vowel + laryngeal
> alternate with traditional schwa.  Once established, it could be exploited.

Pat comments:

And "exploited" it was, to provide a nuance.

Pat continued:

>> To _sai{'}so:_: for this example to be significant to my point, you would
>> have to argue that in IE *se:i- the [e:] is *original* (not the result of
>> *e/oH) which, on the basis of "_*se-soH_", I presume you would not assert.

>> For you to make the point I think you are attempting to make, you need to
>> identify a primary IE [e:] which undergoes Ablaut in situations analogous
>> to [e/o].

Leo questioned:

> I don't follow your logic at all.  Could you explain?

Pat attempts to answer:

If I understand you correctly, you are maintaining that the earliest IE had
an [e:] which was phonemic (contrasted with [e/o]) and was not the result of
a reduction of [He] or [eH]; this is what I presume you mean by "original".

I am asking you to identify an "original" [e:], e.g. in a verbal root,
*Ce:C, which has a perfect stem *Co:C. A root for which we reconstruct *CeHC
will, of course, not qualify.

 <snip>

>> Pat differs:

>> IE "pronouns" in every significant way look and act like nouns --- with
>> the sole exception that the inflections seem to be more conservative.
> ...
>> Outside of a very few simple forms like *me, *te, *se, etc., which might
>> slip in under the rubric of nominal, simple nominal and verbal CV-roots,
>> which had wide semantic ranges, were *differentiated* by additional elements
>> at a very early time --- at least in the languages from which IE derives.
>> If we are unwilling to look beyond IE, then we must say, principally, that
>> the simplest nominal and verbal root-form is CVC.

Leo responds:

> But there you have it!  The IE pronouns neither look nor act like nouns!
> Pushing it back to Nostratic doesn't change anything there, since you're
> saying that they must have been different there too.

Pat, hopefully not patronizingly:

A pronoun is a pro-noun. It can be put in any position syntactically in
which a noun can be employed. To say that pronouns do not "act like nouns"
is completely unjustified!

They do not look like nouns in one regard: they are principally *Ce vs.
*CeC; however, that is due to their frequent enclitic employment where
brevity is recommended. They have retained an earlier form for some usages.
But, on the other hand, *me has *eme (*Hem = *CeC), for some employments
that mocks the normal nominal/verbal *CeC. Also, various particles
like -*g{^}hi created a virtual *CeC format.

In addition, there is the non-pronominal *me-, 'middle', which seems to be
essentially nominal though *Ce.

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)