Re: [tied] Timing of ablaut

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 02:49:52 +0000, Glen Gordon <glengordon01@...>
wrote:

>
>Miguel:
>>That's what I said. The vowel that was rounded by *h3 is etymologically
>>short (original *o itself is not affected by laryngeals), so we don't
>>expect it to give /a:/ in Indo-Iranian. The *o in *dóru(r), *g^ónu(r)
>>comes from pre-PIE **a:
>
>But again, I don't see the necessity of this idea. The simple reason why
>*h3 doesn't affect *o is that *h3 is a labialized aspirate [hW]. Since *o
>is round already, labiality cannot affect an already labial vowel.

I was of course referring to *h2o, where *o is not coloured by the
laryngeal.

>>(by the extremely common development /a:/ > /o:/)
>
>The abundance of such changes in world languages means
>nothing if the necessity of a "longer" *o is not borne from the
>full analysis of the evidence in IE itself.
>
>First internal evidence, THEN external justification.

I have given _nothing but_ internal evidence. To wit:

1. Brugmann's law
2. The development of Tocharian vowels
3. The non-colouring of *o by laryngeals (*h2 specifically)

In addition, there is also:
4. The plene writing of *o (..a-a-) in Hittite, as e.g. in wa-a-tar "water"
[this something that I have not investigated, so I'm not sure what the
exact rules are, and how significant the thing may be]
5. The quality *o of the thematic vowel before voiced segments, suggesting
lengthening as the cause (exactly as we find in Skt.: bhar-a:-mas,
bhar-a-tha).


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...