On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 12:34:05 -0500, Patrick Ryan
<
proto-language@...> wrote:
>I see where you are going with that. Very interesting.
>
>I, too, of course, endorse a pre-PIE stage with three vowels: *e, *a, *o; of course, vowel height is the only real difference; and Sumerian shows i, a, u for these, so you may be closer to the truth.
>
>My first question: do you assume original long vowels? or do you assume they are from some phonological process like stress-accent?
I assume long vowels, as well as processes of morphological
and phonetical vowel lengthening.
Basically, my system is:
stressed unstressed
**a => *é 0
**i => *é ~ *=yé/*=í 0 ~ *=y/*=i
**u => *é ~ *=wé/*=ú 0 ~ *=w/*=u
**a: => *ó *é
**i: => *é: ~ =*yé: 0 ~ *=y/*=i
**u: => *ó ~ =*wó 0 ~ *=w/*=u
(where = means 'morphological boundary'). I have explained
the system at length in the past on this forum.
One important case of lengthening occurs in posttonic
(svarita) position (unless the preceding morpheme is heavy),
which explains the vowel alternations in a paradigm like
(svarita lengthening notated as <â> instead of <a:>):
nom. **xák-man-z > **xák-mân-z > *h2ák^mo:n
acc. **xák-man-m > **xák-mân-m > *h2ák^monm.
gen. **xak-mán-as > **xak-mán-âs > *h2(a)k^ménos
"Lexical" long vowels are very much rarer than short vowels,
but their presence explains Ablaut patterns like:
o~e
*pá:d-z > *pó:ds > *póds > *pó:ds
*pá:d-m > *pó:dm > *pódm > *pódm.
*pa:d-ás > *pad&'s > *péd&s > *péds
e:~0
*kí:rd > *k^é:rd > *k^é:r(d)
*ki:rd-ás > *k^&rd&'s > *k^r.dés
o~0
*pú:nt-ah2-z > *pó:nt&h2s > *pónt&:h2s > *póntoh2s
*pú:nt-ah2-m > *pó:nt&h2m > *pónt&h2m > *pónth2m.
*pu:nt-áh2-âs > *p&nt&'h2o:s > *p&nt&h2ós > *pn.th2ós
> I assume no long vowels until laryngeals begin disappearing.
>
>I notice you seem to be suggesting that laryngeals develop out of voiceless stops
>in some positions. Would the other voiceless stops in the same positions also generate
>*H1? or are you suggesting a tripartite process: *k, in the same process, for example
>to *H2, and *p to *H3?
I think that *p > *f > *h3 before a stop or /n/ (as in
*pnóbh- > *h3nobh- "navel"). There is no final *-p, as far
as I know, but had it existed, it would also have given
*-h3.
Final *k and *k^ give *h2. It's also possible that *k/*k^ >
*h2 in contact with another stop (or /n/), e.g. a word like
*h2osth2- "bone" may come from *xa:stk-. But the contact has
to be pre-zero-grade (post-zero-grade *tk etc. give the
so-called PIE "thorns").
Final *-kW (from earlier **-ku) gives *-h3, but final **-ki
gives *-h1. I explain the dual nominative (preserved in
thematic nouns) as from *-iku > *-ih3 (thematic *-á-iku >
*-é-h3, with regular loss of *i after a stressed thematic
vowel, as in the feminine *-á-ih2 > *-é-h2), while the
oblique is based on *-iki > *-ih1.
*t medially before a stop or /n/ gives *h1 (*méh1-not-),
[except that *k takes precedence: *tk > *th2]. In final
position *-t (< **-ta) gives *-h1 only when preceded by a
stressed *é (as in the ins.sg. *-ét > *-éh1), but not in
Anatolian (Hitt. ins.sg. -ét). Otherwise final *-t is
maintained (as in the 3sg. verbal ending *-t), or weakened
to *-d (as in the pronominal neuter sg. e.g. *to-d). I'm
not sure whether the abl.sg. (the proterodynamic variant of
the intrumental, with "svarita lengthening" of the vowel) is
to be reconstructed as *-ot or *-od.
Original **-ti gives *-y and **-tu > *-sW (Armenian -k`,
elsewhere -s). That explains the pronominal/thematic
plurals, from (nominative) **-átu > *-ésW, **-a-atu >
*-o(:)sW, versus oblique **-áti > *-éy, **-a-ati > *-oy-.
For **-ti > *-y also cf. the numeral *trey-es(W) "3" <
**tilati-, Semitic *c^&lác^ > *t_alá:t_.
>Do you believe that *H1, *H2, and *h3 had phonemic status, for instance, initially?
I assume you mean "initially before a vowel". Yes, *h2 and
*h3 certainly. *h1 is more doubtful, as there is no way to
distinguish between *h1V- and *V-.
>Without the Hittite evidence, I deduce laryngeals for pre-PIE through Egyptian cognates showing j (pre-PIE *Ha/*He) or h (pre-PIE *Ho) with *H deriving from even earlier *?,*h, *¿, and *H (dotted *h).
>
>In "month", I believe like you, apparently, that it is a derivation from *me:-, "measure", with you presumably preferring derivation from the extended form *met-.
>
>I believe that *me-, in turn, is derived from *me + *?a, 'stative', so that *me:- is "measured". Further derivation with *na, 'individualizer', produces *me:n-, which, I think can be seen in Egyptian mjn, 'today' ('measured thing'), and, of course *me:n-, 'month'. Of course, the indefatigable IE's had to add more onto that!
>
>Whereupon, the collective *-t(o) was added, producing *me:'net-, with Ablaut *me'not-; whereupon nominative *-s(o) was added, producing *me:'nots-. The cluster was eliminated, lengthening the preceding vowel: *me:no:t-. *me:s- is probably *me:- + *s(o), nominative; *me:ns-, *me:n- +*s(o), nominative. *me:nes-, genitive, is simply *me:n- + *se-, genitive (*me:'nes-); *me:neses-, simply *me:'nes- + *so, nominative, +*se, genitive: *me:ne'ses-.
>
>But to get back to your example, does not underived *me:- suggest an *e quality in your first derivation: **mátnu:-t-?
I think the e: is from *eh1 (and in turn the *h1 from *t).
The root "measure" has variants *met- and *meh1- (which I
assume are originally from *met-V vs. *met-C-).
There is external evidence in the Kartvelian word for
"moon", OGeo. ttue-, twite-, tue-, Mod. Geo. tve-, Megr.
tuta-, Laz mtuta, which I would derive from the oblique base
*mat-núta > *m&t-túta > *(m)t(t)uta.
>And, in connection with the vowel-glides, do you assume as I do, that PIE *k^- is a result of pre-PIE *ke?
That would be *ki in my scheme. No. The PIE *k^-series is
many times more frequent than the *k-series, which leads me
to believe that it stands for unmarked /k/ (/g/, /gh/).
That would make the *k-series marked back velars (uvulars)
in pre-PIE (*q, *G, *Gh). There *is* a connection with
vowel quality, as follows:
**-ká- > *-k^é-
**-kí- > *-k^é-
**-kú- > *-kWé-
**-qá- > *-ká-
**-qí- > *-ké-
**-qú- > *-kWá-
So after velars/uvulars, it's _almost_ possible to
reconstruct the original vowel quality, which is impossible
after other consonants. For instance, *t:
**-tá- > *-té-
**-tí- > *-té-
**-tú- > *-té-
(but when *t follows:
**-át- > *-ét-
**-ít- > *-ét-
**-út- > *-és-
)
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...