Re: [tied] Timing of ablaut

>It is not a priori excluded that some IE language shows a difference
>continuing a difference of vowel timbre in original /H3e/ as opposed to
>plain /o/.

Perhaps I forget, Jens, or misunderstood. Didn't you object to this
difference in your discussions with me over Brugmann's Law?

On the claim (Brugmann's Law) You said:

>What claim is that now? The claim made on the basis of presumed regular
>short /o/ in *H3ew-i-s and *H3ep-os will have to be that the coloration
>product of /e/ by preceding /H3/ was significantly different from /o/ from
>other sources in the protolanguage, and that the difference was retained,
>of all places, in the pre-Indo-Iranian language stage in which *e, *a, *o
>had not yet coalesced into the later common product *a.

>The many o-types that do abide by Brugmann's Law have only one thing in
>common, which is the sound o. Then, that would seem to be the way /o/ was
>processed in this language. How can a vowel that is *always* /o/ be
>excepted from these rules? I find all of this extremely hard to believe.

I notice, however, that you support the idea in another post:

>> Lubotsky wrote an article about it: La loi de Brugmann
>> et *H3e- in 'La Reconstruction des Laryngales (=
>> Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres
>> de l'Université de Liège 253), Paris, (1990) 129-136'.
>> He concludes that *H3e did not get lengthened by
>> Brugmann's Law.
>> So Skt. ápas- < *H3ép-os- and also e.g. Skt. ánas- <
>> *H3én-os-.
>
>[Jens:] I know that, in fact that was the very impetus for my own little

renewed

>investigation. I find the same idea expressed in a manuscript of a
>university class I gave in 1972