Now, with different ablaut types, this apparent "stress related" vowel change, seems to be realized slightly differently. Since these ablaut patterns are highly regular, you'll see me focus primarily on the Nonnarten Acrostatic forms, as they're the easiest on the eyes to see. In reality, what I've shown can apply to pretty much all ablaut forms.
Now, regarding my original idea before the stress-related idea, I had spotted another possibility. I'd like to explore the idea, that at least in the case of the root-vowel, that the:
o-grade - Marked a sort of "default" case, including the Nominative, Vocative, and Accusative cases.
e-grade - Marked cases that were either Genetival and or Prepositional in meaning.
While not far off from my previous post, its an idea I'd like to explore further as well. It's not entirely exclusive from it either, as this system could reasonably have arisen from the previous.
Though once you get to the secondary places where you'll find vowels, such as in the stems and endings, this gets a little trickier. For instance, half the plural endings have -o- in them (Genetive, Ablative, Dative (alternatively -mus), and Ablative. Though it wouldn't necessarily contradict my hypothesis, it creates problems for my stress-related theory when it comes to certain Ablaut forms, where the ablaut vowel falls in the stem, though these differences are resolveable, it still bothers my thirst for simplicity.
As far as the verbs are concerned, I'll get to them at a later date. I want to try to not quote wikipedia twice if I can't help it. Especially since I'm less familiar with the ablaut when it comes to verbs, I won't so easily spot the error and be able to correct them. At least not at this time.
Tuesday, August 19, 2014
Saturday, August 16, 2014
Thoughts on IE Nominals and Ablaut
I'm curious about a pattern I noticed with nouns, there seem to be two basic clusters that noun cases fall into; At least when it comes to their basic ablaut patterns. We'll call them Cluster A and Cluster B, and they're defined by their ablaut forms:
Cluster A: Nominative, Vocative, and Accusative
Cluster B: Instrumental, Dative, Ablative, Genetive, and Locative
I wasn't sure what I was seeing in this. I was tempted to compare it to Arabic and Akkadian's case conjugations. Which in the case of Arabic offers up Nominative -u, Accusative -a, and Possessed/Genetive -i. I'm not so sure that correlation is meaningful though, especially since I know too little of the nominal conjugations of the other AfroAsiatic languages to draw such a connection. So I set the idea to the backburner.
It was a curious pattern from a language I created, that developed when -e- became an oblique form that eventually replaced the use of -o- when Acrostatic root nouns were highly productive. Especially when I added an Ergative -a-, so the pattern was freaky similar, but was a coincidence I'd otherwise have missed.
In all honesty, I knew from the start it was a coincidence. Though it was a curious one, and it got me thinking about it. Obsessing over the ablaut is a better term. I wanted to know its origin. What if it evolved from an earlier consonantal root system? Or maybe it was developing in that direction and stopped? I didn't have any convincing ideas as of yet.
Though while writing this, I did think about Uralic and its stress patterns at the level of ProtoUralic, and I noticed that it followed this basic formula:
CV=Syllable, and not Consonant+Vowel specifically per se, at least here:
CV́CVCV̀CV(CV̀)(CV),etc...
Due to their geographical proximity towards one another, what if at a stage earlier than what is reconstructed for ProtoIndoEuropean, or possibly at the level of ProtoIndoEuropean itself, it had this same basic pattern? Perhaps, like the above, its a pattern that doesn't really exist, but has seemed to have appeared by coincidence. Though I think its an interesting idea to explore nonetheless.
What I'm thinking is, what if -o- became -e- when preceeded by an adposition of some sort? As if at one point, adpositions influenced the way the noun they modified was pronounced. In the same way that the noun that is modified by the indefinite article in Modern English, influences the way the indefinite article is pronounced:
The indefinite article, when preceeding a Noun that starts with a vowel or consonant, becomes:
Vowel: an
Consonant: a
In other words, perhaps:
Singular Acrostatic Root Noun "night"
What I immediately liked about this idea, was that I really didn't have to change much. Though I did have to suppose that, as a rule, any noun in Case Cluster B, was required to be preceeded by an adposition, or some sort of particle or prefix. While I'd like to see someone with actual university-level credentials on historical linguistics analyze this (not just my armchair amateurish theorization), I would like to note some potential evidence and flaws for this idea:
In the case of the word "fatherless":
Now, I'm not sure if the vowel patterns have more to do with having a prefix attached or if its something that happens with the inclusion of an adjective, I'd like to hear someone in the field's take on it. In the meantime, I'll be researching this further. (No, wikipedia isn't my main source for PIE, its simply convenient for copying and pasting.)
It appears like the inclusion of a prefix or particle before the noun, is what changed the vowels within the Noun itself.
However, there is a slight problem with this, at least in the case of the negative prefix n-, It would have been predicted that the prefix would get the stress, not the root. Or perhaps, like with ʔeme>me after the loss of the laryngeal, a prior particle ʔene>ne~n was similarly reduced?
As you can see below in the chart taken from wikipedia, suffixes do sometimes have influence upon how vowel patterns are realized, or so it seems. It does seem to appear to be stress-related in nature. At least from what I can tell. This doesn't deal so much with my theory, and would necessarily be knowledged gleaned before my hypothesis came into existence, so it can't really be used as evidence of any sort:
Taken from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_nominals
Cluster A: Nominative, Vocative, and Accusative
Cluster B: Instrumental, Dative, Ablative, Genetive, and Locative
I wasn't sure what I was seeing in this. I was tempted to compare it to Arabic and Akkadian's case conjugations. Which in the case of Arabic offers up Nominative -u, Accusative -a, and Possessed/Genetive -i. I'm not so sure that correlation is meaningful though, especially since I know too little of the nominal conjugations of the other AfroAsiatic languages to draw such a connection. So I set the idea to the backburner.
It was a curious pattern from a language I created, that developed when -e- became an oblique form that eventually replaced the use of -o- when Acrostatic root nouns were highly productive. Especially when I added an Ergative -a-, so the pattern was freaky similar, but was a coincidence I'd otherwise have missed.
In all honesty, I knew from the start it was a coincidence. Though it was a curious one, and it got me thinking about it. Obsessing over the ablaut is a better term. I wanted to know its origin. What if it evolved from an earlier consonantal root system? Or maybe it was developing in that direction and stopped? I didn't have any convincing ideas as of yet.
Though while writing this, I did think about Uralic and its stress patterns at the level of ProtoUralic, and I noticed that it followed this basic formula:
CV=Syllable, and not Consonant+Vowel specifically per se, at least here:
CV́CVCV̀CV(CV̀)(CV),etc...
Due to their geographical proximity towards one another, what if at a stage earlier than what is reconstructed for ProtoIndoEuropean, or possibly at the level of ProtoIndoEuropean itself, it had this same basic pattern? Perhaps, like the above, its a pattern that doesn't really exist, but has seemed to have appeared by coincidence. Though I think its an interesting idea to explore nonetheless.
What I'm thinking is, what if -o- became -e- when preceeded by an adposition of some sort? As if at one point, adpositions influenced the way the noun they modified was pronounced. In the same way that the noun that is modified by the indefinite article in Modern English, influences the way the indefinite article is pronounced:
The indefinite article, when preceeding a Noun that starts with a vowel or consonant, becomes:
Vowel: an
Consonant: a
In other words, perhaps:
Singular Acrostatic Root Noun "night"
| sing. | nom. | nókʷt-s |
|---|---|---|
| voc. | nókʷt | |
| acc. | nókʷt-m̥ | |
| inst. | kóm nékʷt-(e)h₁ | |
| dat. | dó nékʷt-ey | |
| abl. | h₂ét nékʷt-s | |
| gen. | h₂ét nékʷt-s | |
| loc. | ʔén nékʷt-(i) | |
| dual | nom.-voc.-acc. | nókʷt-h₁e |
| plur. | n.-v. | nókʷt-es |
| acc. | nókʷt-n̥s | |
| inst. | kóm nékʷt-bʰi | |
| dat.-abl. | dó nékʷt-m̥os | |
| gen. | ʔén nékʷt-oHom | |
| loc. | ʔén nékʷt-su |
What I immediately liked about this idea, was that I really didn't have to change much. Though I did have to suppose that, as a rule, any noun in Case Cluster B, was required to be preceeded by an adposition, or some sort of particle or prefix. While I'd like to see someone with actual university-level credentials on historical linguistics analyze this (not just my armchair amateurish theorization), I would like to note some potential evidence and flaws for this idea:
In the case of the word "fatherless":
| Ablaut grade | PIE (reconstruction) | Greek | (Greek transliterated) | Translation |
| e-grade or full grade | *ph2-tér-m̥ | πα-τέρ-α | pa-tér-a | "father" (noun, accusative) |
| lengthened e-grade | *ph2-tḗr | πα-τήρ | pa-tḗr | "father" (noun, nominative) |
| zero-grade | *ph2-tr-és | πα-τρ-ός | pa-tr-ós | "father's" (noun, genitive) |
| o-grade | *n̥-péh2-tor-m̥ | ἀ-πά-τορ-α | a-pá-tor-a | "fatherless" (adjective, accusative) |
| lengthened o-grade | *n̥-péh2-tōr | ἀ-πά-τωρ | a-pá-tōr | "fatherless" (adjective, nominative) |
Now, I'm not sure if the vowel patterns have more to do with having a prefix attached or if its something that happens with the inclusion of an adjective, I'd like to hear someone in the field's take on it. In the meantime, I'll be researching this further. (No, wikipedia isn't my main source for PIE, its simply convenient for copying and pasting.)
It appears like the inclusion of a prefix or particle before the noun, is what changed the vowels within the Noun itself.
However, there is a slight problem with this, at least in the case of the negative prefix n-, It would have been predicted that the prefix would get the stress, not the root. Or perhaps, like with ʔeme>me after the loss of the laryngeal, a prior particle ʔene>ne~n was similarly reduced?
As you can see below in the chart taken from wikipedia, suffixes do sometimes have influence upon how vowel patterns are realized, or so it seems. It does seem to appear to be stress-related in nature. At least from what I can tell. This doesn't deal so much with my theory, and would necessarily be knowledged gleaned before my hypothesis came into existence, so it can't really be used as evidence of any sort:
Taken from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_nominals
| acrostatic root noun | acrostatic lengthened root noun | amphikinetic (?) root noun | hysterokinetic r-stem | amphikinetic n-stem | hysterokinetic n-stem | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| gloss | night (f.) | moon (m.) | foot (m.) | father (m.) | lake (m.) | bull (m.) (< "ox") | |
| sing. | nom. | *nókʷts | *mḗh₁n̥s | *pṓds | *ph₂tḗr | *léymō | *uksḗn |
| voc. | *nókʷt | *mḗh₁n̥s | *pód | *ph₂tér | *léymon | *úksen | |
| acc. | *nókʷtm̥ | *mḗh₁n̥sm̥ | *pódm̥ | *ph₂térm̥ | *léymonm̥ | *uksénm̥ | |
| inst. | *nékʷt(e)h₁ | *méh₁n̥s(e)h₁ | *pedéh₁ | *ph₂tr̥éh₁ | *limnéh₁ | *uksn̥éh₁ | |
| dat. | *nékʷtey | *méh₁n̥sey | *pedéy | *ph₂tr̥éy | *limnéy | *uksn̥éy | |
| abl. | *nékʷts | *méh₁n̥sos | *pedés | *ph₂tr̥és | *limnés | *uksn̥és | |
| gen. | *nékʷts | *méh₁n̥sos | *pedés | *ph₂tr̥és | *limnés | *uksn̥és | |
| loc. | *nékʷt(i) | *méh₁n̥s(i) | *péd(i) | *ph₂tér(i) | *limén(i) | *uksén(i) | |
| dual | nom.-voc.-acc. | *nókʷth₁e | *mḗh₁n̥sh₁e | *pódh₁e | *ph₂térh₁e | *léymonh₁e | *uksénh₁e |
| plur. | n.-v. | *nókʷtes | *mḗh₁n̥ses | *pódes | *ph₂téres | *léymones | *uksénes |
| acc. | *nókʷtn̥s | *mḗh₁n̥sn̥s | *pódn̥s | *ph₂térn̥s | *léymonn̥s | *uksénn̥s | |
| inst. | *nékʷtbʰi | *méh₁n̥sbʰi | *pedbʰí | *ph₂tr̥bʰí | *limn̥bʰí | *uksn̥bʰí | |
| dat.-abl. | *nékʷtm̥os | *méh₁n̥smos | *pedmós | *ph₂tr̥mós | *limn̥mós | *uksn̥mós | |
| gen. | *nékʷtoHom | *méh₁n̥soHom | *pedóHom | *ph₂tr̥óHom | *limn̥óHom | *uksn̥óHom | |
| loc. | *nékʷtsu | *méh₁n̥su | *pedsú | *ph₂tr̥sú | *limn̥sú | *uksn̥sú | |
| proterokinetic neuter r/n-stem | amphikinetic collective neuter r/n-stem | amphikinetic m-stem | proterokinetic ti-stem | proterokinetic tu-stem | proterokinetic neuter u-stem | ||
| gloss | water (n.) | water(s) (n.) | earth (f.) | thought (f.) | taste (m.) | tree (n.) | |
| sing. | nom. | *wódr̥ | *wédōr | *dʰéǵʰōm | *méntis | *ǵéwstus | *dóru |
| voc. | *wódr̥ | *wédōr | *dʰéǵʰom | *ménti | *ǵéwstu | *dóru | |
| acc. | *wódr̥ | *wédōr | *dʰéǵʰōm | *méntim | *ǵéwstum | *dóru | |
| inst. | *udénh₁ | *udnéh₁ | *ǵʰméh₁ | *mn̥tíh₁ | *ǵustúh₁ | *drúh₁ | |
| dat. | *udéney | *udnéy | *ǵʰméy | *mn̥téyey | *ǵustéwey | *dréwey | |
| abl. | *udéns | *udnés | *ǵʰmés | *mn̥téys | *ǵustéws | *dréws | |
| gen. | *udéns | *udnés | *ǵʰmés | *mn̥téys | *ǵustéws | *dréws | |
| loc. | *udén(i) | *udén(i) | *ǵʰdʰsém(i) | *mn̥téy (-ēy) | *ǵustéw(i) | *dréw(i) | |
| dual | nom.-voc.-acc. | *méntih₁ | *ǵéwstuh₁ | *dórwih₁ | |||
| plur. | n.-v. | *ménteyes | *ǵéwstewes | *dóruh₂ | |||
| acc. | *méntins | *ǵéwstuns | *dóruh₂ | ||||
| inst. | *mn̥tíbʰi | *ǵustúbʰi | *drúbʰi | ||||
| dat.-abl. | *mn̥tímos | *ǵustúmos | *drúmos | ||||
| gen. | *mn̥téyoHom | *ǵustéwoHom | *dréwoHom | ||||
| loc. | *mn̥tísu | *ǵustúsu | *drúsu | ||||
| neuter s-stem | proterokinetic h₂-stem | hysterokinetic h₂-stem | eh₂-stem (ā-stem) | o-stem | neuter o-stem | ||
| gloss | cloud (n.) | woman (f.) (> "queen") | tongue (f.) | grain (f.) | nest (m.) | work (n.) | |
| sing. | nom. | *nébʰos | *gʷḗn | *dn̥ǵʰwéh₂s | *dʰoHnéh₂ | *nisdós | *wérǵom |
| voc. | *nébʰos | *gʷḗn | *dń̥ǵʰweh₂ | *dʰoHn[á] | *nisdé | *wérǵom | |
| acc. | *nébʰos | *gʷénh₂m̥ | *dn̥ǵʰwéh₂m (-ām) | *dʰoHnéh₂m (-ā́m) | *nisdóm | *wérǵom | |
| inst. | *nébʰes(e)h₁ | *gʷnéh₂(e)h₁ | *dn̥ǵʰuh₂éh₁ | *dʰoHnéh₂(e)h₁ | *nisdóh₁ | *wérǵoh₁ | |
| dat. | *nébʰesey | *gʷnéh₂ey | *dn̥ǵʰuh₂éy | *dʰoHnéh₂ey | *nisdóey | *wérǵoey | |
| abl. | *nébʰesos | *gʷnéh₂s | *dn̥ǵʰuh₂és | *dʰoHnéh₂s | *nisdéad | *wérǵead | |
| gen. | *nébʰesos | *gʷnéh₂s | *dn̥ǵʰuh₂és | *dʰoHnéh₂s | *nisdósyo | *wérǵosyo | |
| loc. | *nébʰes(i) | *gʷnéh₂(i) | *dn̥ǵʰwéh₂(i) | *dʰoHnéh₂(i) | *nisdéy | *wérǵey | |
| dual | nom.-voc.-acc. | *nébʰesih₁ | *gʷénh₂h₁e | *dn̥ǵʰwéh₂h₁e | ? | *nisdóh₁ | *wérǵoy(h₁) |
| plur. | n.-v. | *nébʰōs | *gʷénh₂es | *dn̥ǵʰwéh₂es | *dʰoHnéh₂es | *nisdóes | *wérǵeh₂ |
| acc. | *nébʰōs | *gʷénh₂n̥s | *dn̥ǵʰwéh₂ns (-ās) | *dʰoHnéh₂ns (-ās) | *nisdóns | *wérǵeh₂ | |
| inst. | *nébʰesbʰi | *gʷnéh₂bʰi | *dn̥ǵʰuh₂bʰí | *dʰoHnéh₂bʰi | *nisdṓys | *wérǵōys | |
| dat.-abl. | *nébʰesmos | *gʷnéh₂mos | *dn̥ǵʰuh₂mós | *dʰoHnéh₂mos | *nisdó(y)mos | *wérǵo(y)mos | |
| gen. | *nébʰesoHom | *gʷnéh₂oHom | *dn̥ǵʰuh₂óHom | *dʰoHnéh₂oHom | *nisdóoHom | *wérǵooHom | |
| loc. | *nébʰesu | *gʷnéh₂su | *dn̥ǵʰuh₂sú | *dʰoHnéh₂su | *nisdóysu | *wérǵoysu | |
| Athematic | Thematic | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| acrostatic root noun | hysterokinetic r-stem | proterokinetic ti-stem | proterokinetic neuter u-stem | eh₂-stem (ā-stem) | o-stem | neuter o-stem | ||||||
| PIE | Post-PIE1 | |||||||||||
| gloss | night (f.) | father (m.) | thought (f.) | tree (n.) | grain (f.) | nest (m.) | work (n.) | |||||
| sing. | nom. | *nókʷt-s | *ph₂t-ḗr | *mént-i-s | *dór-u | *dʰoHn-éh₂ | *dʰō̬n-ā̬́ | *nisd-ó-s | *wérǵ-o-m | |||
| voc. | *nókʷt | *ph₂t-ér | *mént-i | *dʰoHn-[á]2 | *dʰō̬n-á | *nisd-é | ||||||
| acc. | *nókʷt-m̥ | *ph₂t-ér-m̥ | *mént-i-m | *dʰoHn-éh₂-m (-ā́-m) | *dʰō̬n-ā̬́-m | *nisd-ó-m | ||||||
| inst. | *nékʷt-(e)h₁ | *ph₂t-r̥-éh₁ | *mn̥t-í-h₁ | *dr-ú-h₁ | *dʰoHn-éh₂-(e)h₁ | *dʰō̬n-ā̬́? | *nisd-ó-h₁ | *wérǵ-o-h₁ | ||||
| dat. | *nékʷt-ey | *ph₂t-r̥-éy | *mn̥t-éy-ey | *dr-éw-ey | *dʰoHn-éh₂-ey | *dʰō̬n-ā̬́-y | *nisd-ó-ey | *wérǵ-o-ey | ||||
| abl. | *nékʷt-s | *ph₂t-r̥-és | *mn̥t-éy-s | *dr-éw-s | *dʰoHn-éh₂-s | *dʰō̬n-ā̬́-s | *nisd-é-ad | *wérǵ-e-ad | ||||
| gen. | *nékʷt-s | *ph₂t-r̥-és | *mn̥t-éy-s | *dr-éw-s | *dʰoHn-éh₂-s | *dʰō̬n-ā̬́-s | *nisd-ó-syo | *wérǵ-o-syo | ||||
| loc. | *nékʷt-(i) | *ph₂t-ér-(i) | *mn̥t-éy (-ēy) | *dr-éw-(i) | *dʰoHn-éh₂-(i) | *dʰō̬n-á̬-y | *nisd-é-y | *wérǵ-e-y | ||||
| dual | nom.-voc.-acc. | *nókʷt-h₁e | *ph₂t-ér-h₁e | *mént-i-h₁ | *dór-w-ih₁ | ? | ? | *nisd-ó-h₁ | *wérǵ-o-y(h₁) | |||
| plur. | n.-v. | *nókʷt-es | *ph₂t-ér-es | *mént-ey-es | *dór-u-h₂ | *dʰoHn-éh₂-es | *dʰō̬n-ā̬́-s | *nisd-ó-es | *wérǵ-e-h₂ | |||
| acc. | *nókʷt-n̥s | *ph₂t-ér-n̥s | *mént-i-ns | *dʰoHn-éh₂-ns (-ās) | *dʰō̬n-ā̬́-s | *nisd-ó-ns | ||||||
| inst. | *nékʷt-bʰi | *ph₂t-r̥-bʰí | *mn̥t-í-bʰi | *dr-ú-bʰi | *dʰoHn-éh₂-bʰi | *dʰō̬n-ā̬́-bʰi | *nisd-ṓ-ys | *wérǵ-ō-ys | ||||
| dat.-abl. | *nékʷt-m̥os | *ph₂t-r̥-mós | *mn̥t-í-mos | *dr-ú-mos | *dʰoHn-éh₂-mos | *dʰō̬n-ā̬́-mos | *nisd-ó-(y)mos | *wérǵ-o-(y)mos | ||||
| gen. | *nékʷt-oHom | *ph₂t-r̥-óHom | *mn̥t-éy-oHom | *dr-éw-oHom | *dʰoHn-éh₂-oHom | *dʰō̬n-á̬-ō̬m | *nisd-ó-oHom | *wérǵ-o-oHom | ||||
| loc. | *nékʷt-su | *ph₂t-r̥-sú | *mn̥t-í-su | *dr-ú-su | *dʰoHn-éh₂-su | *dʰō̬n-ā̬́-su | *nisd-ó-ysu | *wérǵ-o-ysu | ||||
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)