Re: [tied] Re: Short and long vowels

----- Original Message -----

From: elmeras2000

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 7:40 AM

Subject: [tied] Re: Short and long vowels

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-
language@......> wrote:
 
>   I had a similar problem with long and short vowels in my
approach to these problems.
>
>   Without going into detail as to how I think they were
lengthened, I hypothesize a group of roots having the form *Ce:C-,
*Ca:C, and *Co:C, _without_ 'laryngeals' being involved.

You must mention the examples. I am very sure there are IE paradigms
based on root segments with long vowels, as *ste:w- -> *sté:w-/*stéw-
 with a gradation originally completely parallel with é/zero. For
such roots there are also paradigms based on short /e/. For the few
items I would like to have underlyingly long /a:/, as 'nose'
and 'salt', I have no good evidence for a parallel independent /a/.
The same goes for the one item of /o:/ I imagine (but don't insist
upon), *gWo:w- 'cow'. Could you tell us what material you are
talking about?

 

***

Patrick:

 

The way I came across this problem initially was attempting to understand why a word like *ayos-, 'metal', shows up with short <a>. According to my hypothesis, /a/ was _not_ retained from Nostratic unless it was lengthened. It could be lengthened by a 'laryngeal' or by an aspirated stop (*ph, *th, *kh) or other aspirates when  they gave up their aspiration. If Nostratic <a> were not lengthened, it would fall into the regular Ablaut of *e/*o/*Ø. For PIE *ayos-, I reconstruct Nostratic *hayés-.

***

 

>   The problem I found with this is that where I expected Ca:C, I
frequently found *CaC, etc.

The weak grade of /a:/ will be /a/ by regular development. You must
mention the material if you want a reaction to your impression of it.

 

***

Patrick:

 

I am not trying to argue the merits of this idea, I simply thought it might be helpful to explain the long/short variation _you_ detected.

 

I believe *hayés- passed into pre-PIE as *a:yés-, and, with transfer of stress-accent to the initial syllable: *á:yos-. Now there may have been an **áyos- from another Nostratic root in PIE but we do not know of one. Therefore, by economy of effort, *á:yos- could be shortened to *áyos- without any loss of root integrity; and was.

 

***

>   After some thought, I applied what I think is a principle of
language development: economy of effort.
>
>   Where there was no homonymous *CaC, *Ca:C could be shortened to
*CaC with no loss of root integrity; and frequently was so
shortened; when there was such a root, resistance to shortening the
vowel was much stronger.

I would like to see your expose in concrete terms. While I
understand your suggestion for a principle quite well, it does not
correspond to anything I have noticed. Therefore you need to

demonstrate it.

***

Patrick: 

 

On your two examples:

 

I also believe that *nas-, 'nose', should be reconstructed with /a:/ but I believe that the reason it has /a: is that a 'laryngeal' was involved: Nostratic *na?s-.

 

I am afraid you will like my explanation of *sal- even less. Here, I believe the pre-Nostratic form was *sHala-, i.e. with aspirated /s/: Nostratic *sa:l-.

 

Not having to contend with **nas- or **sal- from a different root, they could be shortened without sacrificing root integrity, i.e. unambiguous semantic reference.

 

Before I offer an opinion on "*ste:w- -> *sté:w-/*stéw-", could you confirm for me if this is the root meaning 'thicken'?