Schindlers Exceptions & PIE *kur- foal

Andrew Miles Byrd University of Kentucky andrewbyrd@uky.edu Saturday, June 22nd , 2013

Introduction.
(1) RULE OF PIE (S CHINDLER 1977)
+son s yl l ! [+s yl l ] /

S YLLABIFICATION
s yl l , # s yl l , #

2. *-Cmn- 6! *-Cmn h ei] [mno] ! g h eimnah2 winter ! *[g h ei] [mo] > Lith. iemnis *[g [mns] *h2 akmns stone (gen.sg.) ! *[h2 ak] [ns] > Skt. a ! *[h2 ak] snah . 3. *CR1 R2 V 6! *CR1 R2 V Rare instances where *CR1 R2 V is syllabied as [CR1 R2 ] [V] (whereby creating hiatus), if ! [CR R ] [C-] occurs elsewhere /CR1 R2 C/ 1 2 within same paradigm. (a) PIE *tri om three (gen.pl.), not **trio m (b) Skt. -v(i)y as, not **-uy as n-s ! *kuns n-bh is ! *ku n-bh is! But *ku , *ku 4. *-R-m(s) 6! *-Rm(s) Accusatives to sonorant nal athematic nouns of the type *-im, *-um(s), *-rm(s) are never syllabied as *-im, *-um(s), *-rm(s), respectively. ! *[mn] [tim] Thus, *mntim mind (acc.sg.) (**mntim),*s(e)uhx num(s) son(s) (acc.) ! *[s(e)uh x ] [num(s)] (**s(e)uhx num(s)), and *p@h2 trms fathers (acc.) ! [*p@h 2 ] [trms] (**p@h2 trms). 5. *CR-n-C- 6! *CRnC The last and undoubtedly most vexing exception is the nasal-inxed present. While the strong stem poses no problem at all (thus a root of the shape *CeRC- + *-ne- ! *[CR] [neC] ,

(iterative from right to left) Nicely handles most common environments of *R + *R: 1.
C #

RR

C #

C #

RR

C #

(a) PIE *sru-t-s owed (masc.nom.sg.) ! *sruts > Skt. *sruth . , Gk. utc; (b) PIE *nun nine ! *nun > Skt. nva, Lat. nne novem, Gk. (z)a ; 2.

RRV: ns dog (gen.sg.) ! *kuns PIE *ku Skt. nah s c . , Gk. kuno

C #

RRV !

C #

3. VRRV ! VRRV: PIE *oiuos one ! *oiuos > Av. aiva, Cyp. oiwos only Exceptions: 1. *#RR- 6! *#RR-. *uieth2 - (**uieth2 -) > Ved. vyathate rolls ) > Ved. vrjant- going *ureg- (**ureg *mneh2 - (**mneh2 -) > Gk. mnhsa remembered

Byrd Schindlers exceptions & PIE *kur- foal

ECIEC XXXII - Pozna n, Poland

the weak stem is particularly problematic: *Crn-C- ! *[Crn] [C-. The classic example is they yoke !*[iun] [gn] [ti] PIE */iungnti/ **[i] [un] [gn] [ti] , continuedby Lat. iungunt etc. they join, Some of these have already been solved: 1. Keydana 2004, Cooper 2011: O NSET (1) *uieth2 - (**uieth2 -) > Ved. vyathate rolls 2. Kobayashi 2004, Byrd 2010 : O NSET M AX IMIZATION

2
2.1

Explaining the *-nSyllabication by Analogy.

(M)orphological analogy surely played a role, since the root that this form comes from is *ieug or *iug-, and *iung- is closer to the root in shape and sound than *iung-. (Fortson 2010:71) But why was R R tolerated everywhere else in the proto-language? us sky (nom.sg.) 1. PIE *dieu- shine: *di e u (Gk. Ze c) *diu-t- shining (Skt. dyut-) *dius sky (gen.sg.) (Gk. Dic) *diuots (CLuv. Tiwaz sun god) *deiuosdiday vine (Lat. d uus). 2. PIE *sah2 ul- sun : The word for sun, typically reconstructed as a peculiar *-l/n- heteroclite, contains a consonantal *u and syllabic *l in *s(a)h2 ul ), with the situation re (Ved. svar versed in the derivative *suh2 l-io- (Ved. rya-), after laryngeal metathesis. su 3. PIE *sieuhx - sew : The expected zero-grade uh - is reconstructable for *siuh form *si x x -ti- (Oss. xwyj-/xuj- sew) and *siuh x though tas, Lat. s (Ved. sy ut-, Lith. siu utus), a possible instance of laryngeal metathesis, with subsequent syllabication of *i (*siuhx ! *sihx u-ie-) may account for the vocalisms in Ved. s vyati and Goth. siujan sew. In most languages, syllabication is predictable: starting out from the string of segments, one can predict the syllabication. (Hayes 2008:251)

If a consonant cluster could be syllabied as an onset, it was. (1) *[uiet] [h2 (1) *[mneh2 -] 3. Cooper 2011 a, e, o i, u, r, l, n m F P (4) *m : *mentim :: *t : *id it If so, then why: a. *kw (e)tur! four > Gk. truph leiahelmet, Av. c aTru- 4, Gaul. petruid.

(3) *-[uieh2 s] [mns] (2) [*h2 ak]

*kw (e)tru-

r ! *smkru beard > Ved. s m b. *smku sru r ! *drkru c. *drku tear > Gk. dkru, Lat. lacrima , etc. rh2 - ! *suekruh 2 - mother-ind. PIE *sueku -, Grm. Schwieger; with v law > Ved. s sru ro- ! PIE the original sequencing in PIE suku Schwher v sukuro- > Ved. s sura-, Grm. father-in-law Suggests: ur

2.2
(2)

Syllabication as Underlying.
PIE foal (Forssman 1980) Hitt. k urka foal Gk. ku rnoc bastard Ir. *kurno-(ko-) > Pahl.kwlk|

In most languages..."?

What about the nasal-inxed presents?

/kurrag/, 2

Byrd Schindlers exceptions & PIE *kur- foal

ECIEC XXXII - Pozna n, Poland

Mod.Pers. kurra, Arm. kowrak foal, and Kurd. kur young boy, son Other examples of *-uR- not guaranteed : Lat. surculus, Hitt. urka- root (Melchert 1994); - meteor (Mayrhofer 1986) Skt. ulka (3) BARRA E PENTHESIS (Borgstrm 1937) a. b. c. a.ram s a.Lak ma.rav army hunt dead ar.an s aL.@g pot.@x bread sight old man

2.4
(6) (7) (8)

Syllabication & Ablaut.1

a. b. a. b. a. b. ["eI] [p(h) rn] ["ln] [t(h) "rn] " ["eIp(h) r@n] > ["eI] [ p(h) rn] ["lnt(h) @rn] > ["ln] [t(h) r"n] " */h1 imen/ way ! [h1 i] [mn] (justlike apron ) */mnteim/ mind ! *[mn] [tim] (just like lantern) apron lantern

Bosch & de Jong 1997 and Green 1997 : differences in stress, not syllabication! (4) TASHLHIYT B ERBER (Elmedlaoui 1985) suy let pass! zwi beat down! lur give back! lwR run away! t-urti-t garden, f. t-wRta-t feline, f.

(9) (10)

*/h1 eimnes/ ! *[h1 i] [mns] es / */menti ! *[mn] [tis] T HE T HREE RULES OF S YLLABIFICATION

a. b.

1. Syllabication is persistent throughout the phonological derivation. UR

Doesnt seem to work for *-n- presents: /gh rbh nh2 iti/ ! *[gh r] [bh nh2 ] [i] [ti]

*/h1 imen/

*/mnteim/

2.3
(5)

Invoking the pword ().

camp leader employ sublunar subliminal ^] [li:] [dr] [kh mp " [ Em] [ph loI] [s@b] [l u] [nr] " ] [nl] [s@] [bl I] [m I "

*[h1 i ][me n ] *[m n ][tei m ] *[h1 i ][mn ] *[m n ][ti m ] *[h1 i ][mn ] *[m n ][ti m ] *[h1 i] [mn] *[mn] [tim] 2. Sonorants that were moraic earlier in the derivation, remain as such post-syncope. Ablaut Re- SR a. */sreuts/ owed ! *[sru] [ts] h n] [bh is] b. */kuonb is/ w/ dogs ! *[ku c. */gwh rensu/ in minds ! *[gwh rn] [s] d. */kw etuortos/ 4th ! *[kw et] [ur] [tos] Further evidence: CL! 3. Non-moraic sonorants occupy the syllable nucleus iff more important constraints are violated.

Perhaps *bh indnti (and even *mentim) were actually parsed as two separate pwords: (bh i.den.ti)! + (n)! Multiple Problems: 1. No phonological processes that warrant the assumption of /n(e)/ or /m/ as a distinct ; 2. No evidence that primary stress was assigned to both /n(e)/ and /m/ in addition to the stem: *bh intsti, *bh indnti bite(s), not *bh intsti, *bh indnti; 3. Circular argument! 4. Actually expect: **[mn] [ti] [m] & **[bh i] [n] [dn] [ti] (men.ti)! + (m)!

1 A similar account is discussed (and dismissed) by Cooper 2011, in the context of Steriades 1988 analysis of Sanskrit syllable structure. Note that my account has been developed independently of both.

Byrd Schindlers exceptions & PIE *kur- foal

ECIEC XXXII - Pozna n, Poland

Obeying O NSET ons/ PIE */ku PIE */kw etuores/

! 6 ! ! 6 ! ! 6 ! ! 6 !

Obeying the M AX ST ons/ PIE */ku PIE */kw etuores/

[ns] *[ku] n] [s] *[ku [res] w *[k e] [tu] w *[k e] [tur] [es] [ns] *[ku] ns] *[ku [res] *[kw e] [tu] w *[k e] [tures]

In this way *u + r metatheses much easier to han dle. Note in English, too: 1. lantr@n : 1906, Beached Keels, by Henry M. Rideout, p. 229 "Mornin capn," he saluted, with an auriferous grin. "Say, the aint no weeck in the big lantrun. Kin I git one ashore, spose?" 2. ap@rn" : 1535, Bible (Coverdale) Gen. iii. B They sowed fygge leaues together, and made them apurns. And PIE *kur-? 1. /kurCos/ ! [kur] [Cos] or 2. /keurCos/ ! [kur] [nos]

PIE *-n- and *kurUR

(11)

*/bh einednti/ they split *[bh e i ][ne ][d n ][ti ] *[bh i ][n][d n ][ti ] *[bh i n ][d n ][ti ] *[bh in] [dn] [ti]

Ablaut Re- SR

But why does Schindlers theory works so well? Surveying athematic sufxes containing two sonorants, each is of the shape *-RVR : *-uer, *-uel, *-uen, *-men, *-mer. In a survey of PIE verbal roots containing two sonorants, all but one2 is of the shape *(C)RVR(C)- : *h2 uers- rain, *dh reugh - de cut, ceive, *tuerk*uel- roll. This entails that in the zero-grade of both types, *-RR and *(C)RR(C)-, respectively, the rightmost sonorant will always syllabify, given that it had been moraic before syncope took place, hence *-RR and *(C)RR(C)-! We no longer need to assume for PIE: a, e, o i, u, r, l, n m P We can come up with a much more sensible one: a e, o i, u r l n m F P

Conclusions.
New theory makes three well-founded assumptions. New theory better for two simple reasons... Some Questions Remain! a. Schindlers rule + lexicalized exceptions (like Berber)? b. Diachronic process = synchronic reality? c. If so, there are possibly major implications for our understanding of PIE (morpho)phonology: Nullstufe /h1 sti/ / /h1 snti Schwundstufe */h1 stei/ / */h1 esntei

2 PIE *bh eru- (Lat. feru o) + *-to- boil ! *bh rut-, but we expect **bh rut-.

Byrd Schindlers exceptions & PIE *kur- foal

ECIEC XXXII - Pozna n, Poland

References
Borgstrm, Carl Hjalmar. 1937. The dialect of Barra in the Outer Hebrides. NTS 8.71 242. Bosch, Anna and Kenneth de Jong. 1997. The Prosody of Barra Gaelic Epenthetic Vowels. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 27 (1).1 15. Byrd, Andrew Miles. 2010. Reconstructing Indo-European Syllabication. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles dissertation. Cooper, Adam. 2011. Syllable Nucleus and Margin in Greek, Vedic, and Proto- IndoEuropean. PhD dissertation, Cornell University. Elmedlaoui, Mohamed. 1985. Le parler berbre chleuh dImdlawn (Maroc) : segments et syllabation. PhD dissertation, Universit Paris 8. Forssman, Bernhard. 1980. Hethitisch kurkaComm. fohlen. Zeitschrift fr vergleichende Sprachforschung 94(1./2.).7074. Fortson, Benjamin. 2010. Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction (2nd ed.). Chichester, U.K. & Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell. Green, Antony Dubach. 1997. The Prosodic Structure of Irish, Scots Gaelic, and Manx. PhD dissertation, Cornell University. Hayes, Bruce. 2008. Introductory Phonology. Wiley-Blackwell. Kobayashi, Masato. 2004. Historical Phonology of Old Indo-Aryan Consonants. Tokyo: Fujiwara. Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1986. Indogermanische Grammatik: I-2 Lautlehre. Heidelberg: Winter. Meillet, Antoine. 1934. Introduction ltude comparative des langues indo-europennes (7th ed.). Paris: Hachette.

Melchert, H. Craig. 1994. AHP = Anatolian Historical Phonology. Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi. Schindler, Jochem. 1977. Notizen zum Sieversschen Gesetz. Die Sprache 23.5665. Seebold, Elmar. 1972. Das System der indogermanischen Halbvokale. Heidelberg: Winter. Steriade, Donca. 1988. Reduplication and Syllable Transfer in Sanskrit and Elsewhere. Phonology 5(1).73155. Vennemann, Theo. 1988. Preference Laws for Syllable Structure and the Explanation of Sound Change, with Special Reference to German, Germanic, Italian and Latin. Berlin / New York / Amsterdam : Mouton de Gruyter.