[tied] Re: Short and long vowels

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-
language@...> wrote:

> 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-.

Why not *H2éy-es-/*H2éy-os-?

>
> ***
>
>
> > 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.

I do not see the necessity of any of these steps. IE s-stems are
generally held to be underlyingly root-stressed, the original
paradigm being apparently proterodynamic. That makes "*hayés-"
suspect. Why did you depart from precisely that form?

>
> ***
>
> > 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-.

Does this mean: Nostratic *-a?- > PIE *-a:- without laryngeal in
PIE? I would be ready to accept that, provided there is some
evidence showing it.

> 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-.

Does this mean: Nost. aspiration + /a/ > PIE /a:/ without
laryngeals? I can accept that too if it is supported by evidence.

> 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.

But *were* they shortened? It seems to me they just alternate a:/a
by normal rules.

> Before I offer an opinion on "*ste:w- -> *sté:w-/*stéw-", could

you confirm for me if this is the root meaning 'thicken'?

It isn't: *stew- 'bekannt sein, preisen' (Kümmel in LIV,
although 'bekannt sein' is plainly just the mediopassive). It's one
of the most classical examples of Narten ablaut.

Jens