Re: [tied] Re: Short and long vowels

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

From: Miguel Carrasquer

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 3:10 PM

Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Short and long vowels

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:16:40 -0500, Patrick Ryan
<proto-language@...> wrote:

>
>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: Miguel Carrasquer<mailto:mcv@...>
>  To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
>  Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 2:14 PM
>  Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Short and long vowels
>
>
>  On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:31:20 -0500, Patrick Ryan
>  <proto-language@...<mailto:proto-language@...>> wrote:
>
>  >  I agree completely except I think we started out with *e, *a, and *o  +*H (undifferentiated). But the result of the combination of a vowel and a 'laryngeal' resulted in long (double length) vowels.
>  >
>  >  You then say: "These then developed in the normal way in the daughter languages."
>  >
>  >  Again I agree completely.
>  >
>  >  Zero-grade involved the removal of one vowel: *men- + *tó = *mNtó
>  >
>  >  Zero-grade with the removal of one vowel from *dhe:- /dHee/, *sta:- /staa/, and *do:- /doo/ leaves *dhe-, *sta-, and *do-.
>
>  There: you're saying it again.
>
>  ***
>  Patrick:
>
>  Yes, and I will continue to say it.

I don't doubt that for a minute.  But it's wrong: *dhe-,
*sta-, and *do- cannot give Vedic dhi-, sthi- and di-.

***

Patrick:

 

What you are not taking into consideration is that *dhe-, *sta-, and *do- are not possible for Indo-Iranian.

 

Therefore, your assertion is meaningless.

 

All PIE *e, *a, and *o became <a> in Indo-Iranian.

 

 

Patrick