Re: [tied] Stop horsing around

----- Original Message -----
From: "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 5:45 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Stop horsing around



> Nifty. Is Indic <a> pronounced as schwa in all positions or just most?
> If there is no [a] in contrast with [a:], how is the length maintained?

The long ans short subsystems need not be qualitatively parallel in all
respects. They are independent e.g. in British English, where there is no
short /a/, the vowel of <cat> being (middish-)low front, that of <cot> fully
back and rounded, and that of <cut> mid-low central. Still, there is a long
(fully low, rather retracted) /a:/, as in <last> or <half> (and of course
from contracted /ar/ as in <harm>), without a short counterpart.

There are lots of Indic languages, and their vowel systems are not the same.
Many of them, e.g. Hindi and Marathi, have a short <a> ranging between the
vowels of <cut> and "uh", depending on the context, but never quite low,
unlike /a:/. Similar qualities are traditionally assumed for Sanskrit.

> Alright now. Considering for a moment that AbAd loaned its "horse" word
from
> a satem term *ec'was, where could *ekwo- originally be from? I don't like
> unetymologized words. Could there be some verb root **ok- "to run(?)" that
> became lengthened to produce *o:ku- "quick" on the one hand but *ekwos on
> the other (via an earlier **?kwos with accent on the last syllable)?

A good question. I wish I knew the answer :)

Piotr