Re: [tied] The "Mother" Problem

From: Rob
Message: 36092
Date: 2005-01-31

--- In, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:
> --- In, "Rob" <magwich78@...> wrote:
> > So you surmise that accent was retracted where there was
> underlyingly-
> > long root vocalism?
> Certainly. In the inventory of received IE paradimg types, long
> root vocalism only occurs in acrostatic paradigms.

Do you have any thoughts about where the long root vocalism came

> That does not quite exhaust the possibilities however, for some
> lexemes do appear with a mobile accent, as *pó:d-s, *ped-ós, and
> *yé:kW-r, *yekW-n-ós. In general opinion they are mostly taken to
> have introduced mobility by analogy at a later date. I agree with
> this scenario, although it could of course be wrong; but it could
> hardly be simpler.

I assume that you attribute the difference in vowel quality between
*po:d- and *ye:kW- to voiced vs. unvoiced following consonants?
What about *(xW)re:gs, however? According to your theory, it should
be *(xW)ro:gs.

You've stated earlier that pretonic /e/ draws the accent. Why do
you believe that to be so, in phonological/phonetic terms?

- Rob