Re: [tied] Re: PIE Ablaut

On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 23:52:36 -0500, Patrick Ryan wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <mcv@...>
>> The "counterexamples" mentioned by Collinge aren't counterexamples.
>> bharama:na- < *bheromh1no-, with */o/ in a closed syllable.
>> apas-, anas- have *h3e-.
>> The oblique pada: < *pedeh1 has e-grade, as expected.
>> In the cases of avi- and pati-, we have closed syllables in the oblique
>> (*h2owy-, *poty-), and in the case of pati-, even in the original
>> nominative *pótyo:n, as preserved in Tocharian (petso).
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> Of course they are. Let us not play word games.
>
> By Brugmann's _original_ formulation, they certainly would be
> counterexamples.
>
> By Brugmann's Law, there are counterexamples. To still call his basic idea
> with the many qualifications that have been added like fingers in a leaking
> dike Brugmann's Law is totally unjustifiable.
>
> Brugmann asserted PIE *o to OI a: IN ALL OPEN SYLLABLES. I am capitalizing
> this because it just does not seem to be taken into consideration here.
>
> Of course, Brugmann renounced his own "law".
>
> In the case of bharama:na, why does not *bheromh1no lead to OI *bhara:mana:?
>
> I fear you will probably say that *h1 closes the previous syllable while, at
> the same time, appearing as <a>. That reminds of of Kuryl-owicz who had the
> decency to withdraw his qualification. And why should *h1 appear as <a:>?

a: is the normal development of a long sylllabic nasal.

We have Skt. -Vma:na-/-Ca:na-, Avestan -mna-, Grk, -meno-, so it must come
from *-mh1no-. The preceding syllable is closed.

> Even with the qualification, the final *o must be apophonic;

Which final o? The thematic vowel you mean?

> Of course, the next qualification (Kleinhans) took care of that: now, the
> open syllable had to be followed by a nasal or liquid.

Kleinhans is wrong.

> Now comes the idea that *H3 rather than apophony accounts OI ápas- for
> *op-os-. Then what accounts for a:s'ú- from *o:k^ú-s? I have already guessed
> your answer: let heap up laryngeals until we get the phonological result we
> want: *H3eH1k^u-. Closed syllable, of course!

You guessed wrong. Even if this were a case of Brugmann's law, which it
obviously isn't, one would need an _open_ syllable, not a closed one. And
given Greek o:kús, it cannot be a case of Brugmann's law, since the law
does not apply to Greek.

> Any other discrepancies: well, call in our old friend ANALOGY.
>
> As for your *H2owy-, how does that relate to OP xa:ya, 'egg'?

It doesn't. The "egg" word (assuminmg OP x- is secondary) has *o:, so it's
got nothing to do with Brugmann's law.

> This is a bad law; it has always been a bad law; and no amount of tinkering
> will save it in the long run.

The law is fine. It's apparently your understanding of it that's flawed,
or you wouldn't have offered *o:k^ús and *o:wyóm as bogus counterarguments.