Dear Nostraticists:

 

 

In a critique of Allan Bomhard's work in a different thread, Bomhard insisted that I explain my own views. He specifically challenged me to do certain things, which I here list:

 

"What hard

> internal Indo-European evidence can you adduce to

support the contention

> that, at one time in its prehistoric development,

Pre- or Proto-Indo-European

> was characterized by a single vowel segment

or mere syllabicity?  How do your

> views explain later developments

within Indo-European or its daughter

> languages?  What is the

theoretical basis for your views?  How do your views

> enable one to

compare Indo-European with putative relatives?  What in the

>

putative relatives lend support to the one-vowel picture of Pre- or

>

Proto-Indo-European?"

 

I will attempt to address each of these questions over a period of time (emails can reasonably only be a certain length) but I will like to begin by attempting to clearing the air on the "one-vowel" question to see if we (Bomhard and other list-members, including me) can find any basic agreement.

 

"One-vowel" is somewhat ambiguous.

 

It can mean: V has one realization phonetically. 

 

Burrow, Hirt, and Lehmann postulated a stage of IE in which it was necessary to postulate only one vowel in order to explain all subsequent vocalic developments as attested by recorded forms in the derived languages. If we used this definition of "one vowel", then that postulated IE one vowel (/*e/) would only have had one phonetic realization, whether that have been [e], as the notation would suggest, or [a]  --- as Lehmann has suggested might be likelier. It should never be forgotten that IE /*e/ at this early stage in no way asserts phonetic [e] but is merely a convenient symbol for a vowel (or even more fundamentally: sonority) that, in time, would develop the morphosemantic forms /*e/ ([e]) and /*o/ ([o]), our familiar attested Ablaut or apophonic variation.

 

"One vowel" can also be defined in a different way. And much as I am reluctant to coin new words, I am going to be forced to do so. It can be defined *lexico-semantically*. If anyone can propose an existing recognized term for what I am to describe, I will be glad to junk my creation, and substitute it.

 

A lexico-semantic one vowel would be defined as a vowel which, however it is realized phonetically, provides no strictly vocalic lexical contrast.

 

If we use this definition, it does not matter how earliest IE /*e/ was realized phonetically because no lexical differences can be reconstructed among roots with identical consonants regardless of what the vowel might have been phonetically.

 

This is what I believe is meant by ^, Lehmann's more neutral symbol for "syllabicity".

 

There is nothing in Lehmann's theory, as I understand it, that precludes any particular vocalic phonetic realization  for ^ though [a] would, on a typological basis, probably have been represented at least disproportionately often.

 

Let us be even more explicit. At this early stage, a possible /mun/ and /min/ would have contrasted phonetically, and perhaps even syntactically, but *not* lexically.

 

Did ^ (or /*e/) have various non-lexically significant allophones? Possibly, but unless some connection among these *possible* allophones and the later reconstructed *e/*o-Ablaut stage can be shown, it hardly matters. If it had no discernible later effect, hypothesizing it is futile.

 

Now, Bomhard asks: "What in the putative relatives lend support to the one-vowel picture of Pre- or  Proto-Indo-European?"

 

Much ink has been spilt over the proper analysis of Caucasian vowel-systems. However interesting, we can find a much closer putative relative to support this analysis of the earliest IE vocalism, namely Semitic.

 

Bomhard adopts a Semitic-inspired model of vocalism for PAA, which I think is highly questionable. Let us focus on his model for Semitic: *a/6*. This may or may not be demonstrable but, let us assume tentatively that these two vowels can be substantiated --- at least for Semitic. We have here two phonetic realizations of one lexico-semantic vowel since Bomhard, by his notation of *Ca/6C- for Semitic (PAA) roots, tacitly acknowledges that the appearance of *a or *6 will be determined morphosyntactically. As a consequence, his PAA roots, like his PIE ones, produce triads of homonyms since Nostratic *ma/6n-/*mi/en-/*mu/on, which are all distinguishable lexically, all result in PAA/PIE *m6/an-, which can be lexically related to any of the three foregoing Nostratic sources.

 

Lexico-semantically, PAA has one vowel (with two morphosyntactically determined allophones ---- possisbly). Now this is what Kuiper asserted unsuccessfully about Kabardian. If the Kabardian lexico-semantic one-vowel ([a]/[6]) must be ruled out on typological grounds, so must a version of PAA or Semitic reconstructed with *a/*6 rather than *a AND *6, which is still only two lexico-semantic vowels.

 

Lexico-semantically, earliest PIE had one vowel. This is proved by the universally recognized reconstruction of PIE roots, absent 'laryngeals', as *Ce/oC-. This variation produces only morpho-semantic (sorry, folks, another one) differences. The great majority of *Ce/oC- root does not contrast with *CiC- or *CuC- roots, which, if these were vowels in their own right, we should expect.   

 

Now Bomhard postulates the same stage of PIE as having had a *a/*6 vocalism, which he equates (though not explicitly, as far as I can see, with a phonological explanation) with the later reconstructed *e/*o vocalism of traditional PIE.

 

There is nothing in Lehmann's theory of "syllabicity" of which I am aware that would rule out any allophone of ^ that produced a morpho-semantic (folks! I am "phoneme"-shy after the last go-around) difference but not a lexico-semantic one.

 

Thus, I personally would have no problem hypothesizing a stage of IE syllabicity in which syllabicity had two morphosyntactically determined phonetic realizations: [a] and [6].  And it might also be possible to relate [a] and [6] to *e and *o in a convincing way though I have not seen the argument to do this. But, until I do, I consider Lehmann's explanation that the *e/*o-Ablaut originated from stress and tone-induced variations on _one_ theoretical realization of ^ (syllabicity) plausible, and, in lieu of a better argument, provisionally assumable.

 

I will attempt to address the other questions raised by Bomhard in subsequent postings.

 

Pat

PATRICK C. RYAN | PROTO-LANGUAGE@...
(501) 227-9947 * 9115 W. 34th St. Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA
WEBPAGES: PROTO-LANGUAGE: http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/
and PROTO-RELIGION:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/indexR.html

"Veit ec at ec hecc, vindgá meiði a netr allar nío,
geiri vndaþr . . . a þeim meiþi, er mangi veit,
hvers hann af rótom renn." (Hávamál 138)