Re: [TIED] PIE ablaut

Main Entry: ab·laut
Pronunciation: 'ä-blaut, 'a-; 'äp-"laut
Function: noun
Etymology: German, from ab away from + Laut sound
Date: 1849
: a systematic variation of vowels in the same root or affix or in related roots or affixes especially in the Indo-European languages that is usually paralleled by differences in use or meaning (as in sing, sang, sung, song)

--end quote--

----- Original Message -----

From: Piotr Gasiorowski

To: cybalist@egroups.com

Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 6:45 AM

Subject: Re: [TIED] PIE ablaut

Ablaut = vowel alternations in different variants (allomorphs) of the same morpheme

 

Qualitative ablaut (e/o, as in wegH-e-ti vs. wogH-os) is often contrasted with quantitalive ablaut (lengthened grade/normal grade/nil grade, as representd by *p@...:r/*p@.../*p@...).

 

"Strange" ablauts: 

 

Post-ablaut phonological changes led to the appearance of various secondary types, especially the "schwa/long vowel" alternation (such as *@/*a:) explained by the laryngeal theory as *X/*eX > *X/*VX > *@/*V: (X= any "laryngeal"; V= a vowel coloured by the "laryngeal"). Another alternation of this kind is *@/*V where *@ alternates with a short vowel (< *X/*Xe). Some minor ablaut types involving long vowels remain somewhat mysterious, though it's generally accepted that they should be explained within the laryngeal theory: *eu/*u:, *o:/*i:, *e:/*oi/*i:.

The original poster asked for an 'exact' definition. I've asked that question myself. A major problem with the definition of 'ablaut' is that Indo-Europeanists tend to use it more broadly than the dictionary definition allows. It's not just used to describe vowel-variation in inflections and reflexes of a root word, but is frequently a shorthand term to describe the whole host of phonological changes that lead to the daughtering of proto-Indo-European, and within the daughter-languages themselves.

 

Piotr will be quick to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

The vowel represented by 'a' in the words photograph and photographer are different (as is the second orthographic O in 'photographer'). In 'photographer', the vowel represented by orthographic A (ipa script a in my dialect) has reduced to schwa, while the second orthographic O has gone from schwa to ipa-script-a.

 

This change in vowel quality is directly caused by the shift in stress between two words: FOE-tuh-graf, foe-TAW-gruh-fer (I'm too impatient right now to construct the proper IPA form in Unipad).

 

The word that describes this change in vowel quality (but NOT the cause of the change) is 'ablaut'. So far as I can tell, the word means nothing more in its plain lexical sense.

 

For words like photograph and photographer, the change in vowel quality -- and its cause -- is transparent to the native-speaker. It's just part of the phonological rules that govern English. We see nothing remarkable whatsoever in this change in vowel.

 

When discussing our strong verbs, however, most native-speakers of English are at a loss to explain the logic behind strong verbs, e.g., sing/sang/sung. It is 100% non-transparent, the precise converse of the situation for words such as photograph/photographer. What it comes down to is that the rules that generated strong verbs have been long defunct, and our strong verbs are fossils of the previous regime. Combined with other phonological shifts as well as 'erosion' (so I gather) of certain endings, the system that gave us strong verbs is unintelligible -- and making these changes intelligible requires a rather lengthy lecture in historical linguistics and phonetics.

 

As I understand it, the grammatico-phonological process that generated the strong verbs found in Germanic is apparently *directly* inherited from proto-Indo-European, or at least, at the level of an immediate daughter.

 

In IE, we need to mention that ablaut also worked with nouns, especially the case endings. IE had eight noun cases, most of them with a distinctive endings (nominative and vocative were mostly naked, if I remember my reading correctly). At one point in the history of IE, these ablaut changes were as transparently understandable to the IE-speakers as the ablaut changes in the words photograph/photographer are to native-speakers of English. At a later point, as IE daughtered into different languages, for some IE-groups, these ablaut changes were as inexplicable to them as the ablaut changes in the verb ring/rang/rung are to native-speakers of English.

 

The result was the rise of different declensions, multiple paradigms. In English we have our seemingly bizarre strong verbs. Latin has all those seemingly bizarre noun declensions. The example that sticks in my head is the fact that in Homeric Greek, Zeus started with a Zeta in some grammatical cases, and with a Delta in others -- directly as the result of *consonantal* changes set into motion by no-longer understood ablaut changes.

 

In a situation where native-speakers no longer understand why things like this arose, you get simplification, analogical leveling. In English, we've slowly marched most of our strong verbs into the 'regular' category of weak verbs. The past participle of 'work' is no longer (regularly) 'wrought'.

 

With nouns, especially those in paradigms 'ripped apart by ablaut', the various IE languages generated their own simplifications and regularizations. It is exactly here that the Indo-Europeanists use 'ablaut' in a broader sense. When you compare the reconstructed forms of the original 8-case PIE nouns, and what shows up in the daughters, a huge amount of phonological information is also generated. You can also get a glimpse of now-extinct grammatical and lexical processes. The IEists can **internally reconconstruct** a particular language's history, and by comparing what has happened in two or more languages, **comparatively reconstruct** what was happening up earlier in time -- all the way to the PIE level.

 

The word 'ablaut' is being used to describe the comparative differences between a PIE word, and what shows up in the daughter languages. It seems to be used to describe not just those changes conditioned by vowel changes due to stress, but to all the other changes ablaut set into motion -- including consonantal changes.

 

OK, Piotr. How much of this have I gotten wrong?

 

Mark.