Re: ka and k^a

From: Richard Wordingham
Message: 40589
Date: 2005-09-25

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Grzegorz Jagodzinski"
<grzegorj2000@...> wrote:
> glen gordon wrote:
> > Grzegorz:
> >> I also reject the idea that they were pharyngeal
> >> because I think that, from them, only g was
> >> pharyngeal [...]
> >
> > Based on what per se?
>
> Based on glottalic consonants in Sindhi, the glottalic articulation
of the
> vowel before mediae in Latvian, Winter's rule in Balto-Slavic,
Lachmann's
> rule in Latin, Bartholomae's rule in IIr, some Gmc facts (vestjysk
stød,
> preglottalization in English before a tautosyllabic voiceless plosive,
> preaspiration in West Norse).

English preglottalisation is lacking in Australian ('Strine' variety),
which is surprising given that in many ways it is a phonetically
advanced London dialect.

> >> So, I can accept existing of the phoneme /a/ in PIE
> >> (even if I have doubts).
> >
> > You word this as though you have a logical choice in
> > the matter. You simply MUST accept it because as
> > I've said and as was supplied in one of my links,
> > there is not one vowel system attested that lacks
> > an "a"-sound (id est: that lacks a low vowel of any
> > variety).
>
> No, I needn't, for two reasons. I have already enumerated them but I
will
> repeat if you want.
>
> 1) The Late Common Slavic vowel system had no a's. The British English
> system has not either (neither front /æ/, central /^/ nor back /O/
are low
> vowels, and we are not talking about long vowels like /a:/).

British English is too vague a term here. There are plenty of
dialects in which /æ/ is [a] - it's the typical Northern realisation
and *now* apparently the best description of the RP system. On the
other hand, a Birmingham (England, not Alabama) /æ/ is possibly as
high as [E]. By back [O] I presume you mean the vowel of 'cot' - but
that is low and not mid-low.

> 2) IE /e/ may have been /æ/ and IE /o/ may have been /A./ - so both
may have
> been low vowels. Such an assumption is not needed by me for
anything, but if
> you insist so much...

You seem to be contradict point (1) above.

On the related issue of what is the lowest front vowel, is there
actually an answer? While the vowel parallelogram may have sharp
corners, does reality? In the parallelogram, [a] is the lowest front
vowel, but a vowel dubbed /a/ may function as the low central vowel -
or even as a low back unrounded vowel! Although it may be
typographicaly limited, I have a description of the Cambodian vowel
system (Huffman) which arranges a systems of 10 basic vowels as a 3 by
3 square with an extra, low, central vowel. (The diphthongs seem very
regular by this pattern.) The lowest vowel is dubbed /A/ (script
'a'), and the next lowest central vowel is dubbed /a/. I'll include
his description of the vowels, as it demonstrates that he has not made
arbitrary use of the symbols:

<quote>
/aa/ as in /kaa/ 'work'. Tense lower-mid front-of-center unrounded
vowel similar to the French _a_ in _va_. (This vowel is fronter and
higher than the English _a_ in _Father_; to pronounce it such would
confuse it with the vowel /AA/ to the ear of a Cambodian.)

/AA/ as in /kAA/ 'neck'. Low central unrounded vowel, backer than the
English _a_ in _Father_, but fronter than the English _aw_ in _law_.
</quote>

The corresponding short vowels do exist, but the detailed descriptions
are for the long vowels.

The other two central vowels seem to be typical back unrounded vowels
on the Vietnamese/Thai model.

Richard.