Re: [tied] Re: PIE e: > Gmc a:

The intention was to remove the necessity of *e:1 > *a: as a post-CommonGmc.
(i.e. post-continuum) 'borrowing' between by then differentiated dialects
(some having developed *a: < *e:1, others not), a notion which I believe was
entertained in the original posting. If I am mistaken, please continue to
correct me. ;)

Dagfinn

> > ><tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > So that no one should say that I don't learn by my mistakes, I
> > > >took the rule PIE e: > ProtoGmc a: to heart
> >
>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Dagfinn Hobaek"
><captain_yossarian@...> wrote:
> > Well, ProtoGmc. *e: < PIE *e: (ProtoGmc. *e:1 as opposed to *e:2,
>which was
> > of later ProtoGmc. inflectional origin) is generally thought to
>have become
> > *[�:]- (that is, for those of you whose software may not have
>translated it
> > correctly, the ligature *[ae:]) by early ProtoGmc., which is to say
>that the
> > potential for the development *e:1 > *a: was already present long
>before the
> > breakup of the Gmc. continuum. A phoneme [�:]([ae:]) could be
>expected to
> > have the potential allophonic range /e:/ - /a:/. I don't see the
>need to
> > consider any post-continuum influence.
> >
>Wondrous things, those phonetic potentials. As for 'post-continuum
>influence', that is of course a contradictio in adjecto. It becomes
>so by begging the question and assuming what you set out to prove,
>namely that there was a continuum.
>
>Torsten
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Messenger http://www.msn.no/messenger - Den korteste veien mellom deg og
dine venner