I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear in my post. I postulate (tentatively, I’m no expert) that the *σπενδσω > *σπενσω > σπεισω morphological development was phonologically immediate, instantaneous, unmediated, spontaneous. Was -νδσ- or even word-internal -νσ- ever a real Greek sound?
[Was]…even word-internal -νσ- ever a real Greek sound?
Allen would claim not. Inscriptional evidence implies that the [n] [s] assimilation was something automatic in spoken Greek. For example notice “ἐς σανίδι” here:
https://epigraphy.packhum.org/text/69
He concludes that even word-end ν was probably assimilated in closely connected words except before τ, δ, θ, ν, though our texts don’t indicate it.
the *σπενδσω > *σπενσω > σπεισω morphological development was phonologically immediate, instantaneous, unmediated, spontaneous.
You’re probably right about this.
There are many instances where *δσ > σ and *νσ > σ with compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel. But *νδσ > σ with compensatory lengthening could also have occurred immediately and spontaneously without the intermediate step of *δσ > σ. The outcome would have always been the same as if the cluster had gone through the intermediate step, and it seems plausible on phonetic grounds that the cluster would have been reduced in a single, immediate step, based simply on the way the sounds would likely have been articulated in casual speech. Again this would have happened when Greek speakers began to use -σ- as the future marker, when writing had not yet imposed stabilization.
Inscriptional evidence implies that the [n] [s] assimilation was something automatic in spoken Greek.
This is not entirely conclusive. Inscriptional evidence of spoken Greek dates from an era later than the time when Greek speakers decided they would slap σ on verb roots to form future stems. (Don’t jump on me for this bit of facetiousness.) While it seems plausible that in the pre-literate phases of the Greek language similar processes of assimilation would have been in operation – and it’s certain that at some point the assimilation did in fact occur – we don’t have any evidence and probably can’t be 100% certain that the cluster was immediately reduced as soon as σ became the future marker.
I don’t think it was too technical and I see that Mastronade on p. 134 introduces the “*” notation explaining “An asterisk placed before a form indicates that the form is a reconstructed historical precursor of a known form and is not actually found in any surviving documents.)”. So Lukas could have been expected to understand it.
I agree that the historical processes are important and your post was very helpful. Your posts are rarely confusing.
your post was very helpful.
Well, now that mwh has prompted me to think it through more carefully, it looks like I was a bit misleading.
Thanks, Bill (Hylander), for answering my questions in your typically well thought out and modest manner. And Michael (mwh) too and everyone else. Inter alia, thanks (Bill) for your take on Sihler, which sits collecting dust on my bookshelf, never opened. (What did you do for a living, since you say you’re not a scholar, and how did you get into Greek in the first place, if you don’t mind my asking?)
One note re “irregular” verbs. I think we polyglots all get that, once historical linguists have charted the phonological and phonetic changes in a given language for us, the so-called irregular verbs of that language don’t seem irregular any more. But for myself, three cheers for the appendix of “irregular” verbs invariably included in every modern language textbook I know! I have always found this a pedagogically helpful practice in my own learning. Those are verbs whose formation wouldn’t be obvious to me and which I know I have to simply make a point of memorizing.
I don’t want to beat this to death, and maybe I bit off too much, so I hope I don’t blow it and feed another flurry of posts on this non-issue. In my Englische Grammatik textbook (2008 - some years ago I amassed a little collection of foreign-language textbooks), the underlined verbs are all from its appendix of irregular (unregelmäßige) English verbs! The Sorbonne’s Nouvelle Grammaire du Français (2004 - French grammar for Frenchmen) has its tableau des principaux verbes irréguliers. My crumbling la lingua italiani per gli stranieri (1973) ends with its Indice alfabetico dei verbi semplici irregolari. Mille grazie signore di Mondadori!
“Irregular verbs don’t really exist” is right up there with “Deponents don’t really exist.” Really? But for pragmatic reasons I also rejoice that a number of resources have lists of these “non-existent” verbs, and I will continue to talk about deponents because it’s handy to explain why certain verbs only have middle and/or passive morphology, but still like to take direct objects.