[tied] Re: Indo-European /a/

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 21:29:32 +0000, etherman23
> <etherman23@...> wrote:
>
> I'm assuming /e e: o(:)/ (with marginal /i u a(:)/).
>
> In any case, we can avoid complicating things as I did
> above, by simply saying that laryngeals do not colour long
> vowels (essentially *e:), nor *o.

You practically have the neo-grammarian vowel system plus three
laryngeals (I assume you're only advocating three). I'd say that
pretty complicated already. In the laryngeal theory we are assuming
an e~o ablaut, so it doesn't explain where that comes from to begin
with. It really only explains the other ablaut forms. But if we're
going to assume long vowels anyway, as well as /a/ then the
laryngeals become superfluous. The a~o ablaut can be explained by
anaology. If we assume one noncoloring laryngeal (a la Szemerenyi)
then we can also explain e:~o: and a:~o:.

> But the only theory known to explain all the facts is de
> Saussure's.

I'm a bit skeptical of that.

> We find e:, a: and o: where we would expect full grade (e.g.
> present ti-the:-mi), and we find Greek e, a, o (I-I /i/,
> other /a/) wherer we would expect to see zero grade (e.g.
> past pass. ptc. thetos).

Well, if we accept that there were original long vowels then I don't
see the need for the laryngeal. We'd expect to find long vowels in
some positions. Whatever process causes the full grade~zero grade
change could also cause the lengthened grade~full grade change. Greek
would then simply restore the full-grade in place of the zero-grade.

> Is your name Thomas?

No, he's just my hero :)

> As I think Kortlandt says somewhere, there is considerably
> more evidence for the laryngeals in Greek than there is in
> Hittite.

I believe Lehmann also didn't think the best evidence came from
Hittite/Anatolian. It seems to me that the Greek evidence (from what
I've seen) consists of discrepencies in search of an explanation
(much like the sharpening in Germanic languages).