On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:54:17 -0500, "Patrick Ryan"
<
proto-language@...> wrote:
>> [mcv]
>>
>> I don't understand your theory.
>>
>> You say *e, *a, *o merged in pre-PIE (eventually yielding
>> *e, *o, schwa secundum or zero, depending on the accent),
>> except when lengthened by a preceding or following
>> laryngeal, in which case they give *e:, *a: and *o: (what
>> about the accent?).
>
>***
>
>But you do understand it. That is exactly what I am proposing.
>
>Except I provide a sign for the bundle: *A.
>
>***
>
>> That cannot be true, if only because it would imply that all
>> initial vowels would have to be long in PIE, and we would
>> have +é:s-mi (*Hés-mi) "I am" instead of *és-mi (*h1és-mi),
>> +á:g^o: (*Hág^o-) "I drive" instead of *ág^o: (*h2ág^o-) and
>> +ó:d(i)o: (*Hód-(i)o- "I smell" instead of *ód(i)o:
>> (*h3ód-(i)o-).
>
>***
>
>But that is exactly what I am proposing given a true *CVC (*HVC) root.
>
>It is certainly the implication but then one further rule modifies the
>outcome:
>
>where the vowel quality itself distinguishes the root from other similar
>roots (*as- from *es-, for example), the lengthened root vowel could be
>safely shortened without loss of semantic integrity.
>
>Now I did say 'roots' not stems.
A theory that explains the "colouring" near laryngeals as
preservation of old vowel qualities (not preserved in the
absence of a laryngeal) is in principle equivalent to
standard laryngeal theory [well, almost... see below].
Instead of *h1,*h2,*h3 and *e, you have *e,*a,*o and *H. You
still haven't told me what happens in unstressed position,
but I suppose you would say *p&2té:r is from *paHtÁr or
something like that, with a: > &2, e: > &1, o: > &3 in
unstressed position.
The weak point in your theory is that it cannot distinguish
between VH and HV, something which is trivial in standard
laryngeal theory.
Your explanation:
>where the vowel quality itself distinguishes the root from
>other similar roots (*as- from *es-, for example), the
>lengthened root vowel could be safely shortened without
>loss of semantic integrity.
This makes no sense to me. The vowel quality, you say, is
original, so it would *always* distinguish the root from
other similar roots. You provide no examples of what happens
when the vowel quality does *not* distinguish the root from
other similar roots [can there be any in the context of your
theory?]. It would be simpler to say that in initial
position, the vowel gets shortened somehow.
So what about final position? In standard laryngeal theory,
it is easy to distinguish between the 1sg. perfect ending
*-h2a (> -a) and the feminine Nsg. *-ah2 (> -a:). The fact
that in the 1sg. perfect an initial consonant was present is
proven by the failure of Brugmann's law in Skt. 1sg. cakara
(*kWe-kWor-h2a) vs. 3sg. caka:ra (*kWe-kWor-e). The fact
that in the suffix *-ah2- there was a final consonant is
proven by the laryngeal hardening processes we have been
discussing (*-ah2-s > *-ak-s).
Another important difference between laryngeal theory and
your "vocalic theory", is what happens when we have a
laryngeal at both sides of the vowel. Again, in laryngeal
theory there is no problem. For instance, the PIE
instrumental suffix is *-eh1 > -e: (in your "vocalic
theory", I suppose that would be *-e(:)H with "original"
*e). Now when added to the feminine marker *-eh2-/*-o-ih2-,
the instrumental becomes *-ah2-ah1 > -a: (e.g. Lith -à) and
*-o-ih2-ah2 > *-oj(j)a: (Slavic -ojoN, with secondary *-m
[Skt. -aya:]). We see that the colouring effect of *h2 is
stronger than the neutral effect of *h1. I don't think
there is a way to explain this using vowel qualities in lieu
of laryngeal qualities.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
miguelc@...