Re: [tied] IE Roots

You misunderstand my view.

I am not talking about infixing wovels. What I an talking about, is
the origin of the qualitative ablaut. I think this originated by
coloring of an original a. In some instances it was fronted to e. In
others it was rounded to o. In still others it was preserved as a.

During infection and derivation the coloring of a would be different
according to what suffixes were added. I think this created the
qualitative ablaut in the first place (mostly e-o-ablaut).

The effect of wovels by the laryngeals may have been in effect
already at the same time that the qualitative ablaut occured. If so,
the h2 did not do any more that preserve the a from being fronted or
rounded. The h3 on the other hand was then one of the rounding
factors.







--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "etherman23" <etherman23@...>
wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "aquila_grande"

<aquila_grande@...>

> wrote:
> > The notion that the ablaut pattern e/o originated from an e is
> > likewise unprobable because it is highly unlikely that an e

becomes

> > an o.
> >
> > The problem can be solved by asuming that the basic wovel was an

a.

> > This a was then changed to an e in certain cases, to an o in

other

> > and remained an a in still other, thus creating the ablaut

pattern

> > e/o (a).
>
> So here's a crazy idea. There is no ablaut, per se. Instead

there's

> an infixing of /a/ and /o/. Then an early vowel shift occurred

which

> fronted and raised a to /e/. The few examples of a~o ablaut are

relic

> areas.
>
> > However, I think that both h1, h2 and h3 existed, because

without

> > these laryngeals, the IE phonemic system would have only one
> > spirant, the s.
>
> There was most likely at least one laryngeal which is reflected in
> Armenian and Anatolian. It's also possible that there was a
> labialized s. That would bring us up to three.