On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 04:06:30 +0000, Glen Gordon <
glengordon01@...>
wrote:
>On the other hand, I think we all instinctively agree that IE derives
>from an earlier three-vowel system (perhaps four) that gave rise
>to the velar varieties, particularly the labialized velars.
If IE derives from a 3-vowel system, then chances are that Uralic does too.
If I redo my Proto-Uralic statistics, but count only the _second_ syllable
vowel, I get:
I 48
a 33
i 29
ä 13
If second-syllable ä is secondary, as seems likely (addition of -a to a
"soft" root), then the three-vowel system has been maintained in the second
syllable without too many changes (/u/ > /I/) and the frequencies are about
right (**u 48, **i 29, **a 33, or 33+13=46).
The vowel harmony then would have worked from right to left, initial
syllable vowels having been harmonized to second syllable vowels. That
would explain the 8-vowel system in first syllables.
The combinations, in order of frequency, are:
15 o-I from **a-u
u-I **u-u
13 u-a **u-a
10 e-i **a-i
I-I **i-u
9 a-a **a-a
8 i-i **i-i
ü-i **u-i
a-I [also from **a-u ?]
7 o-a [also from **u-a ?]
5 e-ä secondary
ä-ä secondary
4 I-a from **i-a
3 ä-i secondary
2 i-ä secondary
1 ü-ä secondary
Not everything fits perfectly. The frequency of I-a is too low, and the
exact origin of a-I and o-a is unclear. Perhaps the system also included,
as in pre-PIE, long **a:, **i: and **u:, which might explain some of the
anomalies. There would also have been diphthongs **ay, **aw and **ya,
**wa, of course.
Any followups to nostratic-l...
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...