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

On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 18:13:34 +0100, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
<gpiotr@...> wrote:

>Being a former schwa-like vowel is not enough to cause palatalisation in IIr at least, where velars are _not_ palatalised before any /i/ that reflects syllabic laryngeals or epenthetic vowels.

Indeed. My comments about schwa and /r./ were not meant to suggest
that PIE *e was ever /I/ or /i/ in Proto-Indo-Iranian. The shift /&/

> /e/ is common enough as well. It happened for instance in (East)

Catalan, where Western Romance closed */e/ (from Latin /i/, /e:/) is
usually reflected as open /E/, and open */E/ (from Latin /e/) as
closed /e/. Since two phonemes cannot just exchange places, the
solution is that /e/ developed into /&/ (as still in Balearic Catalan,
e.g. cate:na /katena/ -> Bal. /k&'d&n&/, E.Cat. /k&'dEn&/), then /E/ >
/e/, and finally /&/ > /E/.

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