Re: [tied] [pieml] Re: IE: likely home, India

On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 12:00:49 -0000, "tgpedersen"
<tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>Not that I would disagree, but what happens if we assume with Cuny
>and Glen Gordon that what is traditionally reconstructed as PIE <o>
>and <e> was actually <a> and <&>? We'd then have for Indo-Iranian
><&> -> <a> and for Greek etc <a> -> <o> and <&> -> <e>. Suddenly II
>looks closer to PIE than Greek etc.

Well, I reconstruct **/a:/ for traditional */o/, and **/a/ for
traditional */e/, which looks even closer to Indo-Iranian (where */e/

> */a/, pronounced [&], and */o/ in open syllables > /a:/). That

doesn't alter the fact that */e/ palatalized I-I *k in a form like
<caka:ra> < *kWe-kWor-e, so that a front vowel for */e/ is absolutely
necessary at some point in Indo-Iranian.

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