Re: [tied] Re: Short and long vowels

----- Original Message -----

From: Miguel Carrasquer

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 1:25 PM

Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Short and long vowels

 

 

<snip>

 

 

>  ***
>  Patrick:
>
>  Why did you delete my question without addressing it? Because you cannot answer it?
>
>  I will try again:
>
>  What is the difference between what you have written above and:
>
>  All *& before the stress-accent give Old Indian -i-.

I still don't see why "before the stress accent" is in any
way relevant.  Yes, all vocalized laryngeals merge as /i/ in
Vedic, regardless of the position of the stress.

***

Patrick:

 

The 'laryngeals' of which we have been speaking are positioned directly before the stress-accent.

 

I was trying to moderate the scope of the claim I am making.

 

If all vocalized 'laryngeals' merge as /i/ in Vedic (with the exception I mentioned of dha:ta), with what justification can you label them *&1, *&2, *&3? Would not simply *& do?

 

***

>  ***
>
>
>  >in other words, the peculiar treatment of *o ceased to be operational.
>
>  In other words, since neither *a, nor *e, nor *o give Vedic
>  /i/, "put", "stood" and "given" did not contain PIE *a, *e
>  or *o.
>
>  ***
>  Patrick:
>
>  How the laryngealists love circles!

And how the anti-laryngealists love epicycles!

***

Patrick:

 

I am NOT an anti-laryngealist!!! Have you not read what I have written???

 

Did I not reconstruct *dheH- as the basis of *dhe:-.

 

Is *H a 'laryngeal' or does it have to have a number to so qualify?

 

***

 

>  What leads you to believe that the zero-grade of PIE *e:, *a:, and *o: in Old Indian is *e, *a, and *o?

*You* said that, for Greek.

 

***

Patrick:

 

Well, the last time I checked, Greeks were not Old Indians — even Old Greeks.

 

Now I will ask you again, what proof do you have that PIE *e:, *a:, and *o:, when zero-graded,  could ever become /e/, /a/, or /o/ in Old Indian — even transitorily?

 

 

***