[pieml] Re: IE: likely home, India

--- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...> wrote:

> 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@...

*/e/? So I-I has */a/ > */e/ > */a/ and */a:/ > */o/ > */a/ ? BTW,
isn't <&> in itself front enough to cause palatalization (the fact of
which I haven't disputed)?

Torsten