Marc V:
>But IT *& > IE *e, and *a>o, so why this "deviation"? why not directly
>Steppe *i > IE *e, and *u>*o, instead of *i>&>e, and *u>a>o?
Simply because that doesn't make as much sense. Granted, it sounds
like a simpler solution but it gets us into trouble. Essentially,
you're saying, "Let's do away with this stage of IE where a
centralized two-vowel system had existed." However, what we end up
with is an unexplainable *e/*o alternation. There's no intuitive
reason, for example, why *e should alternate with *o in the
paradigms of *pod- "foot" (gen. *pedos) or *wodr "water" (gen.
*wednos).
It makes better sense if we assume an earlier centralized vowel
system because *pod- < *pat:-, and hence *ped�s < *pet:-�se (and
even earlier as nonthematic *p�t:-se... but I digress). We see
then that the *e/*o alternation, having originally been *&/*a
alternation, is simply the product of stress whereby all unstressed
vowels are reduced to schwa (later *e or NULL). This phenomenon is
so common that it needs little explanation. However, to dream up a
reason for how this alternation arose *without* this previous *&/*a
stage requires a dilly of a tale that I'm willing to hear...
>Why not IE *pW?
I don't see its presence yet. Come to think of it, though, I
haven't specifically looked for it. Hmm. Well, we don't see any
occurance of **pw in IE. We also don't have a special phoneme **pW.
I guess, given the fact that there is no outward demonstration
of this phoneme in Late IE, I instinctively saw no reason to
include *pW in the earlier inventory.
-------------------------------------------------
Glen Gordon
Webdeveloper
home:
http://glen_gordon.tripod.com
email:
glengordon01@...
ph: (604)904.0320
-------------------------------------------------
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp