--- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Nov 2002 14:24:34 -0000, "tgpedersen"
> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> >--- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 09 Nov 2002 10:57:33 -0000, "tgpedersen"
> >> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> >>
> >> >It's true that Swedish tone 1 corresponds by and large to
Danish
> >stød
> >> >and that the latter is later than the former, but that doesn't
> >> >necessarily mean one evolved into the other. Rather, once a
> >language
> >> >gives up tones, it might begin to use a device to indicate a
> >syllable
> >> >or mora boundary that needed no further indication when tones
were
> >> >used.
> >>
> >> And how is this different from "evolved into"?
> >>
> >> =======================
> >> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> >> mcv@...
> >
> >You will find stød in Danish like this: -CV?C or -CVR?C but never -
C?
> >VC, as you have in your theory.
>
> But I haven't given any theory about the stød.
>
> >It looks like it was the break between tones, not a tone, that
> >evolved into the stød.
>
> The high tone of the second syllable was transferred (as a glottal
> stop) to the first syllable when the final syllable was lost (but
only
> if the first syllable had a long vowel or short vowel + resonant to
> carry the stød). I think that fits the description of high tone
> evolving into stød.
>
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...
in message 16625 you wrote:
"
High tone is certainly associated with glottalization (just as low
tone with aspiration). Within IE, there are a number of examples of
high tone becoming a glottal stop (Danish, Latvian) or aspiration
becoming a low tone (Punjabi), so I'm assuming the process can work
both ways.
"
On the basis of that I made the assumption that you might want to use
the development Swedish tone I > Danish stød in support of your
theory. Therefore I pointed out that a Swedish root CV:C or CVRC with
tone corresponds to a Danish CV?C and CVR?C, thus ending up on the
other side of the vowel. That's why.
A remark: Danish stød occurs in monosyllabic roots. Generally one
hears that since this is always so, the tone system of Old Norse must
have been completely reorganized, and therefore Scandinavian tones
and Danish stød are not related to PIE tones (at least that's why I
was told in sci.lang., when I asked whether it might be related to
the PIE system, as reconstructed from Greek, Lithuanian and Sanskrit)
and therefore not relevant to the study of PIE tones. But that
premise is not true, there are many stødless monosyllabic roots, and
especially in roots of the form -CVRC- stød is unpredictable.
Therefore the conclusion falls, and by Occam (sorry Duns Scotus) we
should un-assume the assumed ON reorganisation of the tone system.
But I assume that's implicit in your idea of how tone I (and stød)
arose; the loss of the second syllable of the ON monosyllabic roots
took place some time in Proto-Germanic, and the high-low distinction
you talk of therefore belongs to that language, and by extension (and
Occam!) is descended from that of PIE.
Torsten