tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post2539005168146483072..comments2023-09-24T05:45:23.811-05:00Comments on Paleoglot: Pre-IE and alternating thematic vowelsGlen Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-69511297905879665852014-02-25T14:17:01.140-06:002014-02-25T14:17:01.140-06:00"If that is the case, then how do we come up ..."If that is the case, then how do we come up with different words in Latin and Greek for words like 'tooth' deriving from -e and -o stems respectively?"<br /><br />Thematic vowels only. The root vowel of nominative *pōds or the *e of genitive *pedós are not thematic vowels. Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-24449296436608635192014-02-23T15:46:47.889-06:002014-02-23T15:46:47.889-06:00Ok, that was very interesting, but it still doesn&...Ok, that was very interesting, but it still doesn't answer the question that I've been trying to find an answer to for the better part of 2 weeks now. <br /><br /><br />So in here you're saying that the -o is the result of the original schwa being next to a voiced consonant and the -e the the result of being next to a voiceless. <br /><br /><br />If that is the case, then how do we Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18051748962316336015noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-60488181241648888272007-08-19T23:47:00.000-05:002007-08-19T23:47:00.000-05:00Holy cow! :) Thanks a lot for the in-depth comment...Holy cow! :) Thanks a lot for the in-depth comment, Chris! <BR/><BR/>To respond adequately to what you've said, I need to write a new blog entry. It doesn't seem fair to stuff this all in the murky shadows of a commentbox. <BR/><BR/>So stay tuned. For now, contemplate the origins of <B>*tesyo</B> "of this" (from stem <B>*to-</B>) and <A HREF="http://books.google.com/books?id=5hOtPBF6XWwC&pg=PP1&Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-62519529585719228452007-08-19T12:47:00.000-05:002007-08-19T12:47:00.000-05:00Interesting thoughts. I'm not familiar enough with...Interesting thoughts. I'm not familiar enough with the PIE corpus to evaluate whether the e~o alternation is likely conditioned by voicing of the following consonant -- and the controversy over whether the traditional plain voiced/voiced aspirated distinction should be interpreted as a distinction between voiceless ejectives and plain voiced consonants would clearly have consequences for your Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-51168926477815649452007-08-06T21:05:00.000-05:002007-08-06T21:05:00.000-05:00phoenix: "shouldn't behind be before"Excuse my hob...<B>phoenix: "shouldn't <I>behind</I> be <I>before</I>"</B><BR/><BR/>Excuse my hobbit dialect ;) To me, it means the same, but I admit I talk weirdly-like ;)<BR/><BR/><B>"Why exactly do you take *a as the original sound?"</B><BR/><BR/>Tonnes of reasons! It explains the rarity of PIE phonemic <B>*a</B>, nicely deconstructs <B>*e</B>/<B>*o</B> ablaut into a simpler alternation of height, exposes theGlen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-79334526054166197162007-08-05T16:49:00.000-05:002007-08-05T16:49:00.000-05:00Wow, I'll have to think about this a bit more.But ...Wow, I'll have to think about this a bit more.<BR/><BR/>But there's at least a small mistake you made.<BR/><BR/>his may be the effects of schwa when positioned behind word accent, rather than after it.<BR/><BR/>shouldn't <I>behind</I> be <I>before</I><BR/><BR/>;)<BR/><BR/>So far everything looks about right. <BR/><BR/>so you say that *e will arise only after unvoiced stops. and *o after voiced Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com