🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan20.184745.15374@leland.Stanford.EDU>, alderson@cisco.com (Rich Alderson) writes:
> In article <1993Jan17.075558.5069@memstvx1.memst.edu>, connolly@memstvx1 writes:
> 
>>One of the consistent myths of historical linguistics is that Lithuanian
>>and/or Greek tones indicate a tone structure in Indo-European.  As far as
>>I can tell, this simply isn't true.
> 
> I think that the evidence of Greek and Sanskrit--both pitch--along with the
> non-reduction of vowels in the earliest-attested languages is fairly good
> evidence for the nature of the (primary) Indo-European accent.

Two points:

1. If the accent in the common ancestor of Greek and Sanskrit was (at
least primarily) one of pitch, it remains to be shown that there were
two *contrasting* pitch contours on stressed syllables.  Your post
rightly rejects the claim that the Sanskrit "circumflex" on forms such
as _svam_ indicates circumlex intonation in Indo-European.  There remains,
I think the Greek genitive plural.  *Any* dissyllabic form we like could
be posited to produce this.  Perhaps we should consider *-oHn (with syllabic
n, since the laryngeal was a consonant)?  Here too the circumflex would be
a peculiarly Greek development.

2. Quite certainly the primary PIE stress was not *always* one of pitch.
You mention "non-reduction of vowels in the earliest-attested languages"
to demonstrate the lack of a strong "dynamic" accent.  This argument 
carries considerable weight.  But equally certainly, the quantitative
ablaut alternations (e:0, ei:i, eu:u, eH:H, eHi:Hi, en:n, etc.) argue
*for* a strong dynamic accent at a still earlier period, since these
alternations are well reflected in Greek and Sanskrit.


> Certainly there seems to have been an accent system, since there is a strong
> correlation between the occurrence of voiceless or voiced reflexes in Germanic
> of the PIE voiceless obstruents and the position of the accent in Sanskrit and
> Greek cognates.

Of course there is a correlation.  I've even published an article about
it.  But this does not tell us anything about the nature of the Germanic
accent before the shift to strong root-syllable stress accent.
In other words: we do not know whether early Proto-Germanic stress was
primarily pitch-based or dynamic, but only where it lay.

[My treatment of Greek omitted]

> The accent placement in Greek is best described by restricting the count to
> *vocalic* morae, and considering the 1st and 2nd declension nominative plurals
> and the middle presents to end in -oy or -ay, while the (rare) locative and the
> thematic optative end in -oi.  In the locative this allows a disambiguation
> from the nominative plural; in the optative, I would claim that it is a reflex
> of a fairly late retention of the original laryngeal (compare the athematic
> alternation -ye:/-i:).

I meant, of course, only vocalic morae; so do all other descriptions I
know.  I also happily concur with the late laryngeal retention.  It
should be obvious that many laryngeals were *not* lost in PIE times,
much less during the transition from "Indo-Hittite" to PIE, as Sturtevant
and others have claimed.  Unfortunately, most Indo-Europeanists still
try to sweep laryngeals under the rug, either denying them or pretending
they don't matter.  They do.  (P.S. if anyone cares, I'll email a list
of my pubs arguing for laryngeals in early Proto-Germanic, including how
they affected the operation of Verner's Law.)

> (For the non-Indo-Europeanists out there:  The preceding is not the usual
> formulation, but my own, so expect to be challenged if you mention it in polite
> company.)

Let's be rude.  It's more conducive to discovering the truth.

[Stuff omitted]

> However, modulo the restricted placement of the accent within Greek, the
> placement within disyllables (for example) accords very well with that in
> Sanskrit.  There is good reason for accepting that the Inod-European accent was
> a pitch rise.

Again, this shows only the *location* of the pitch, if such it was.

--Leo Connolly