Re: [tied] Sanskrit and e, a, o

----- Original Message -----

From: michael_donne

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 2:14 AM

Subject: Re: [tied] Sanskrit and e, a, o

> MD:As I said above, I think applying a "high level of abstraction" to try and reconstruct something that was supposed to really happen and to base it on two ACTUAL languages: Sanskrit and Greek, seems misguided.

 

Two languages only??? Who says the IEists base their reconstructions on Greek and Sanskrit, and nothing else? There are about a dozen branches of IE to compare (with hundreds of languages), and Greek and Sanskrit represent only two of them. It so happens that the abstract analysis of Sanskrit morphemes (or internal reconstruction within Sanskrit, which amounts to the same thing) agrees wery well with the comparative data. For example, PIE *oi is reflected as Skt. e [e:], Gk. oi, but also Balt. *ai, OIr. oi/oe, OLat. oe, Gmc. *ai, Av. ai. The vowel was monophthongised in some languages (e.g. > Slavic *e^, Arm. e: [both different from inherited *e], Welsh u, Mod.Gk. i), but in such cases there is sufficient evidence of its derivation from an older diphthong, and the historical sequences of change (= "what REALLY happened") have been reconstructed in detail. Diphthong-smoothing of this kind is common cross-linguistically. For example, Old French /ai/, /au/ became /E, e/, /O, o/ in historical times. The English vowel of <law, cause, caught> also derives from the ME diphthong /au/.

 

Skt. o may derive from PIE *eu, *au or *ou. Comparison with the other branches reveals the original quality of the diphthong. Note that a former *eu palatalises a preceding velar

 

    *keu, *geu, *gHeu > *cau, *jau, *jHau > co, jo, ho

 

but a former *au or *ou doesn't:

 

    *kou, *gou, *gHou > *kau, *gau, *gHau > ko, go, gHo

 

Similarly,

 

    *kei, *gei, *gHei > *cai, *jai, *jHai > ce, je, he

    *koi, *goi, *gHoi > *kai, *gai, *gHai > ke, ge, gHe

 

This alternation, inexplicable within Sanskrit until you compare it with the other IE languages, was explained ca. 130 years ago. It convinced the linguists of the derived nature of the Sanskrit vowel system. There's much more other evidence, but I have to refer you to any handbook of IE or any good historical grammar of Sanskrit.

 

>>     -------------- a  ------------- a:

>>   i -------------- e: ------------- a:i
>>   u -------------- o: ------------- a:u
>>   R -------------- ar ------------- a:r

> My understanding is that 'i' was normal grade and 'e' was the first level of strengthening. I'd love to see some references to Sanskrit grammar that show otherwise -- or that even discuss this in general.

 

If <e> is the strengthened alternant of <i>, then <i> is the reduced alternant of <e>. The point is that the relations i/y -- e/ay -- ai/a:y (preconsonantal/prevocalic) and r -- ar -- a:r are parallel. In Panini's derivational system the gun.a grade of diphthongs (<e/ay>) is analysed as  containing /a/, and the vRddHi grade <ai/a:y> as containing /a:/.

> Also, phonetically long may refer to stress only.

 

Stress is stress, and quantity is quantity. In Vedic poetic metres there are both stressed and unstressed <e>'s and <o>'s (stress was free and _independent_ of vowel length at that time), and they _always_ count as long.

>> Is the rationale good enough?

> Nope. Not yet. :-)

Hope you find it sufficient now.

 

Piotr