--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > This is in addition to earlier opt. changes of X > X / q / G / R, etc.; which, since xw > Xw , account for alternations like qius Go; cwic(u) OE; or stack, stow, etc.
> >
>
>
> This uvular R usually > r in historical Gmc. Also, at:
>
> http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/books/piep07.html
>
> Winfred P. Lehmann, when discussing OHG r-preterites says: "The sequence assumed here for seventh class verbs is PIE /eXw/ [eXu], for first class verbs /yX/ [iX]. I suggest that in these sequences the laryngeals were preserved, and that their reflexes fell into the OHG r-phoneme."
>
> (note: Lehmann uses X to symbolize any "laryngeal"; I use it for the uvular fricative)
>
>
> He's on the right track, but only xW > XW and x() > X() by w, etc., underwent it, and only optionally X>R>r (scrían is probably from onom. * sqRiX- w/in Gmc, and has nothing to do with PIE yx). He's hindered both by attempting to find a regular rather than optional expl. and his sometimes bizarre sequencing, as when saying: "the u: in these forms would be best explained from the zero grade of /-eXw-/" (though it seems fairly common for some linguists to posit eHu not ewH / uH > u: for some reason).
>
He's also hindered by attempting to find a regular rather than optional expl. at:
http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/books/piep09.html
he says:
"
In chapter 7 we have seen that in some verb forms reflexes of laryngeals were preserved in PGmc. as continuants. If e:2 developed from e plus reflex of laryngeal (written Z below), at some time in early Gmc. there were found side by side forms with a pattern: leZd- and le:2d. Besides these there were words of the pattern: mizd-; the allophone of /i/ before /z/ was apparently very low, see Twaddell, Language 24.147. The allophone of the /i/ in mizd- was then very similar to that of leZd. Thus on the pattern
leZd- : le:2d
mizd- : x
alternate forms with me:2d were made. As we might expect from such an analogical development, only a few such forms were made, and beside these survived the original forms. We find only those cited above, and OE ce:n, OHG kien from *keznos, cf. Russ. sosná `pine' and MLG he:de beside OE heorde, MDu. herde `tow'.
"
He's so intent on attempting to find a regular expl. he doesn't even try or mention an optional expl. Since analogy isn't a sound law, apparently he feels it can be irregular, but using analogy to expl. an obvious sound change is ridiculous.
Short e and i merged in Gmc; for simplicity I'll assume they first became e . In this situation the fact that e+fric. (for so he knows the "laryngeals" to be) became e: for more than one fric. simply and obviously means that the same sound change or very similar sound changes applied to more than one fric. Invoking analogy for an environmental change makes no sense. That z > _ was optional shouldn't make any difference, at least to a linguist who is fully prepared to accept the nature and consequences of opt. changes.
There should be no reason for any linguist to reject a sound change because it's optional. Full regularity is disproven by ex. in many known languages, and has been well-known for many years. An ingrained dislike of such opt. changes apparently is found in many linguists, among other apparently esthetic preferences. All this does is prevent the more insightful from fully realizing exactly what the evidence is showing and that they are on the path of (like Lehmann with the r-preterite).