From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 39282
Date: 2005-07-17
> ----- Original Message -----I haven't dropped them at all. The Greek facts don't allow
> From: Miguel Carrasquer<mailto:mcv@...>
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 3:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Short and long vowels; the explanation of Old Indian /i/ as zero-grade <a:>
>
>
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 15:05:31 -0500, Patrick Ryan
> <proto-language@...<mailto:proto-language@...>> wrote:
>
> >To judge by known Indo-Iranian processes, the phonetic realization of <a:> would have had to have been /ay/, the zero-grade of which would unforcedly have been /i/, <i>.
> >
> >If pre-PIE *H were phonetically realized as /ç/ in PIE, for Indo-Iranian, a change to /y/ would involve simple voicing.
>
> BTW you're also contradicting yourself. A few hours ago you
> said:
>
> > As a consequence, the result of shortening *dhe:- cannot involve a 'laryngeal'
>
> Now you want to use the laryngeal to explain I-I /i/.
>
> The development of /&/ (schwa, into which all vocalized
> laryngeals had merged outside Greek) to /i/ in Indo-Iranian
> is unremarkable. The same thing happened again in Middle
> Indo-Aryan with the syllabic resonant /r./ > /r&/ > /ri/ (as
> in <kr.s.nah.> => <kris.n.a>).
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> Boy, you are a real conservative! EINST LARYNGALISCH IMMER LARYNGALISCH!
>
> First, is /ç/ a 'laryngeal'? How about /y/?
>
> Oh, I see you have now dropped the suspect *&1, *&2, and *&3. Just as well, they were meaningless.
> By the way, I like 6 better for schwa.Yuck.
> Anything can develop into anything but some anything are pretty rare.Earlier, you seemed to be unaware of the fact that they
>
> What proof do you have for the phonetic reality of schwa as a result of all vocalized laryngeals outside Greek. Ah, well, another unanswered question, I would bet.
> What proof do you have you're the stage /r&/?What's your alternative hypothesis?