Re: PIE & Sanskrit Vowel Counts (was: Nominative: A hybrid view)

From: Richard Wordingham
Message: 22660
Date: 2003-06-04

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jun 2003 10:50:07 +0000, Richard Wordingham
> <richard.wordingham@...> wrote:

> >As /a/ and /aa/ are [&] and [a:], Sanskrit provides a parallel to
> >both Miguel's 2-vowel PIE system (length contrast) and to Glen's
> >(height contrast).
>
> Actually, I don't have a two-vowel system anywhere in my
reconstruction of
> pre-PIE. The stages I envisage are:
>
> stressed unstressed svarita
> *á *á: *í *í: *ú *ú: *a *a: *i *i: *u *u: *a: *i: *u:

It take it that by 'svarita' you mean subject to the 'svarita-rule'
("in final syllables, the vowel is lengthened if the preceding
syllable is stressed and short") -
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/14120 . I spent a
long time searching for this definition!

> reduction: short vowels become schwa, unstressed long vowels are
shortened
> (except in svarita position), high long vowels are lowered. Former
*i(:)
> and *u(:) are preceded by a y-glide (^) or a w-glide ("), except
when
> followed by -y or -w (in the Auslaut, stressed *-í and *-ú are
maintained,
> as in the pronoun *tú):


> This leaves:
>
> stressed *&' (*^&', *"&') *á: *^é: *"ó: (*-í *-ú)
> unstressed *& (*^&, *"&) *a
> svarita *a: *^e: *"o:
>
> The palatal and labial glides were absorbed by the preceding
consonant
> (*kW, *gW, *hW/*xW = *h3, etc.) or disappeared, only in morpheme
initial
> position were they maintained as *y and *w. Stressed &' is fronted
to é,
> and so is unstressed *a, while *a: is backed to *o:, and unstressed
long
> vowels are shortened. *o: is shortened even in stressed position
(at least
> in closed syllables).
>
> We now have:
>
> stressed *é *ó (~ *ó:) *é: (*-í, *-ú)
> unstressed *& *e
> svarita *e *o
>
<Snip - more changes>

> This is the PIE system. In tabular form:
>
> stressed +Sz-length unstr. +Sz-length svarita +Sz-length
> *a é é: -- o: o o:
> *a- é/ó e/o
> *a: ó ó: e e:
> *i é é: -- o: o o:
> *-i í yé:(?) i ye: i ye:
> *i: é: -- yo:(?)
> *-i: yé: i yo:(?)
> *u é é: -- o: o o:
> *-u ú wé:(?) u wo:(?) wo wo:
> *u: ó ó: -- o:
> *-u: wó wó:(?) u wo:(?)

I think you meant to have /e/ and /e:/ for *i in svarita position.

The table is misleading, for as you say in the narrative, you see
some instances of what you show ó as actually being ó: (the contrast
does not seem to be phonemic), whence Brugmann's law.

What saves you from having a two vowel system (or rather a four vowel
system) is the unpredictability of /é/ v. /é:/. This extra phoneme
is in the typologically correct place!

What does '*a-' mean? I can't relate it to your narrative.

I'm sorry if I seem to have it in for you today. It's nothing
personal. I'm still waiting to be shot down properly on Classical
Sanskrit *ninyima ; I'm still not sure if it's an incorrect, non-
Indian deduction from 3s perfect middle ninye. Neither nini:ma nor
ninyima seems to be attested in the Roman alphabet on the web!

Richard.