Re: [tied] Timing of ablaut

>Lengthening by Brugmann's Law does not distinguish between /o/ (1) in
>suffix syllables like ra:j-a:n-am, ra:j-a:n-as from *-on-m, *-on-es; (2)
>in the thematic vowel as bhar-a:-mas; (3) in the infix-based first part of
>causative-iteratives, as ma:n-áya-ti; (4) in the reduplication-triggered
>vocalism of the perfect, as ca-ká:r-a; (5) in a root with -o- as the short
>counterpart of a nom. -o:-, as pád-am.

This is irrelevant. All entirely expected by the lengthening of PIE
apophonic *o.

As said in a previous post, 2,3, and 4 are the apophonic vowel, so if
Brugmann's law holds, they are expected to lengthen.
1 and 5 occur in nouns where there was also an alternation -e-/-o-.
For 5 the nominative was *po:s, and the genitive was *ped-os (apud
Szemerenyi). So short vowel forms (from -e-, as in Latin) are no problem.
Likewise in 1, as Szemerenyi notes, "the distribution of strong and weak
cases is properly preserved only in Old Indic ... The following can be
reconstructed for IE : Nom *-o:n, Acc *-en-m ...etc" So the short vowel
forms from -e- are no problem.

>The many o-types that do abide by Brugmann's Law have only one thing in
>common, which is the sound o.

No. They show -o- alternating pardigmatically with -e-. Where there is no
such alternation (eg where o < H3e) then o> short a.

>Do we really, really know that the first syllable of apas-, opus was
>closed in PIE?

Why does it have to be closed? It is sufficient for it to be < H3e-, for
us to expect a short /a/ in Skt - which is just what we find.

Peter