Re: [tied] The phonetic value of PIE *h3 and the 'drink' root.

From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 14135
Date: 2002-07-24

On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 02:50:48 +0200 (MET DST), Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
<jer@...> wrote:

>On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Jul 2002 23:55:56 +0200 (MET DST), Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
>> <jer@...> wrote:
>> >> As to the Luwian and Lycian i-Motion, I raise you the Hittite i-stem
>> >> adjectives (oblique in -aya- = Sanskrit -a:ya:- = PIE *-oyah2- ?).
>> >
>> >In Hittite intervocalic -y- is lost, so gen. -ayas (beside -as) is
>> >analogical on -awas of adjectival u-stems.
>> I'm not familiar with a soundlaw by wich intervocalic -y- is always
>> lost in Hittite.
>You can read about it in Melchert's Anatolian Historical Phonology p. 130
>or Kimball's Hittite Historical Phonology p. 364, but the insight is much

I'll see if I can get a hold of either one.

Meanwhile, let me just ask what Melchert and/or Kimball say about the
sequence *eya. Does it develop to Hitt. -iya- or not? I notice you
didn't make that objection against my association of the Hittite verb
<iyami> with the causative suffix *-ey-%-.

>> In the I expect the same as in the, i.e. -ei-es and
>> -ou-es ~ -eu-es.  The -o- in the u-stems is not a "real" *o (Skt. Dat.
>> -ave: not *-a:ve:, *-avas, not *-a:vas) but an Umlaut of *e
>> (as in *gWou- "cow", Skt. oblique gavV, not *ga:vV, not *javV), a
>> phonetic development which appears to be restricted to u-stems only.
>I have the same problem in the vocative then. Ablaut rules working
>elsewhere would assign *-ey to a PD pattern, just as voc. *p&'2ter goes
>with *p&2té:r, *p&2trós.

See my post about **i and **u for my position on that.

>I would therefore expect voc. either *-i or *-oy,
>but I find *-ey. And in the I expect *-oy-es, *-ow-es, but find
>*-ey-es, *-ew-es. I would assume that the expected -oy-/-ow- has just been
>replaced by -ey-/-ew- by simple levelling in pre-PIE times already. The
>expect -oy- is retained in the amphikinetic type alternating *-o:(y),
>*-oy-m., gen. *-y-os, *-oy-es, but that is another matter.
>Are you seriously assuming that the prestage of Indo-Iranian in which
>Brugmann's Law operated could distinguish an -o- that was an
>umlaut-product of *-e- from an original -o- and only lengthened the
>latter? What happened to that opposition in all the other languages?

Well, as you know, I see Brugmann's law as a retained archaism, not as
a soundlaw that operated in some prestage of Indo-Iranian. As I have
explained in my post about **i and **u, I believe the development of
the vowels in stressed position was:

**a \
**i |- merged to /&/ (/y&/, /w&/)
**u /

**a: \__ merged to /a:/
**u: /
**i: --- develops into /e:/,

giving a system:

*& > *e (but often *y& > *i and *w& > *u)
*a: > **/O:/
*e: > *e:

The long back vowel */O:/ had no short counterpart, which is why it
develops into *o almost everywhere (remedying the anomaly of having
more long than short vocalic phonemes). In pre-Indo-Iranian, however,
the long allophone (including the thematic vowel where lengthened to
**a: > */O:/ before a voiced segment) was retained in open syllables
long enough for it to merge with the new *o: which arose out of
subsequent lengthenings ("Szemerény lengthening" of *o in the
[closed syllable], laryngeal lengthening of *eh3 > o:). But the *o
that arose out of Umlaut of *e in a form like *gWew- > *gWow- (or 1pl.
*-mWes > *-mos, in at least Latin, Celtic and Slavic) was always
short, and therefore is reflected as /a/, not /a:/, in Sanskrit.

Miguel Carrasquer Vidal