Re: [tied] nominative plural

What I said on /o/ and /a/ seems to be ambiguous. I meant there was just
one short and one long vowel. Quantity mattered.

I'm sorry about confusing your **tW and **t'.

What keeps *sW out of the standard reconstructions? Is it guilt by
association with the glottalic theories?

Richard.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:15 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] nominative plural


> See also the current thread on Proto-Germanic declensions.
>
>
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 00:56:49 +0100, Richard Wordingham
> <richard@...> wrote:
>
> >As Proto-Germanic did not distinguish /o/ and /a/, long or short, I would
> >expect it to be [O] (as English 'awe').
>
> It's true that Germanic merged PIE *a (*&) and *o as PGmc *a, and *a:
> (*eh2) and *o: (*eh3) as PGmc *o:, so that strictly speaking there's no
> need to mark the length on *o:. However, short *o arose shortly
afterwards
> (e.g. from *u when *a followed in the next syllable), and is consistently
> distinguished from long *o:.

Richard.