Re: [tied] Qualitative ablaut - case closed

On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 00:34:45 , "Glen Gordon"
<glengordon01@...> wrote:

>This first shift in Early IndoTyrrhenian certainly must have gone something
>like *i to *ei (that is, */@y/) and *u to *eu (*/@w/).

I don't think I've ever encountered such a sound shift. Can you give
examples from any language?

>Currently, I believe that it was the eventual dislike for monosyllabic
>nouns, somewhat like in Modern Mandarin

I'm sorry, but I don't see how the processes in Mandarin can be even
remotely comparable to the kind "automatic" lengthening in
monosyllables you propose for pPIE (which I think is itself at least
partially correct).

>The rest of the quantitative changes are caused by compensatory processes
>via the loss of *s,

This is Szemerényi's proposal, and I believe it's incorrect (*wo:kw-s,
*die:w-s, etc.).

>*x or whatever phoneme, hence some differences between
>nominative and vocative (an unmarked case that lacks nominative *-s) and the
>lengthening of IE *wedo:r and *pxwo:r via the original existence of final
>*-x, a collective suffix (earlier: *wedorx, *pxworx).

This is Rasmussen's proposal, and I believe it's incorect (*-h2 isn't
lost in the collective [n.pl.]).

>The lengthening in *k^e:r is also due to the loss of the final dental stop
>(hence earlier *k^ert without lengthening).

So what about e.g. Arm. sirt (*k^e:rd + *-is)?

>The qualitative alternation is quite clearly determined for the most part by
>accentual alternations in the Tonal stage of Late IE.

Do explain.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...