Re: Re[6]: [tied] Re: PIE initial *a

At 6:41:20 PM on Thursday, May 15, 2008, Andrew Jarrette
wrote:

> Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@... ca> wrote:

> "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@... net> wrote:

>> At 10:36:25 PM on Wednesday, May 14, 2008, Andrew
>> Jarrette wrote:



>> Open syllable lengthening is obviously irrelevant. Look
>> up trisyllabic shortening. There was also an early ME
>> shortening of long vowels before groups of two or more
>> consonants (including geminates); an example involving OE
>> /a:/ is ME <aske(n)> from OE <a:scian>.

> Why is open syllable lengthening irrelevant?

Because the issue at hand was *loss* of length;
specifically, a change *a: > *a.

OK,  I see.  Perhaps a more apt example from English might be  the change of */u:/ to  [U] (/u/perhaps) in words like <book>, <hook>, <good>, <hood>, which joins original /u/ of reduced distribution in words like <full>, <put>, and comes to contrast with /V/ as in <buck>.  I think this might fit the idea of *a: becoming /a/ in positions where there was no earlier /a/ better.

> You said that ME still had length contrasts, but implied
> that it had lost the /a/:/a:/ contrast.

As indeed was the case in early non-northern ME, because it
had lost /a:/ altogether.

Ok, yes you're right.  But I think that it was a considerably short period in which there was no  /a:/.

> Well, the /a/:/a:/ contrast was no different from the
> /O/:/O:/ contrast.

There's a rather large difference: the latter existed, and
the former didn't.

For a short period.

> The open and half-open vowels had a long variety and a
> short variety that contrasted, regardless of origin (i.e
> whether from original long vowels or original short
> vowels).

Not until after open-syllable lengthening, which was later
than the loss of /a:/ and caused that slot to be filled
again. Before OSL the south had this vowel system:

i: i u u:
e: e o o:
E: O:
a

Afterwards it had this:

i: i u u:
e: e o o:
E: O:
a: a

Here /a:/ derives strictly from /a/ in open syllables; /e:/
is partly retained from early ME and partly derived from
lengthened /i/ in open syllables, and there were similar
transfers from the /u/, /e/, and /o/ slots to the /o:/,
/E:/, and /O:/ slots, respectively. Examples: OE <wicu>
'week', /i/ > /e:/; OE <wudu> 'wood', /u/ > /o:/; OE <beran>
'to bear', /e/ > /E:/; OE <nosu>, /o/ > /O:/; OE <sama>
'same', /a/ > /a:/.

_____

Could you entertain the possibility that *a was lengthened before OE *a: was raised to /O:/?  My idea is that the former was /a:/ while the latter was /A:/, subsequently /O:/.  I don't think the evidence contradicts this possibility.

Andrew