Re: [tied] Re: Short and long vowels; the explanation of Old Indian

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

From: Miguel Carrasquer

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 3:45 PM

Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Short and long vowels; the explanation of Old Indian /i/ as zero-grade <a:>

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 15:05:31 -0500, Patrick Ryan
<proto-language@...> wrote:

>To judge by known Indo-Iranian processes, the phonetic realization of <a:> would have had to have been /ay/, the zero-grade of which would unforcedly have been /i/, <i>.
>
>If pre-PIE *H were phonetically realized as /ç/ in PIE, for Indo-Iranian, a change to /y/ would involve simple voicing.

BTW you're also contradicting yourself. A few hours ago you
said:

> As a consequence, the result of shortening *dhe:- cannot involve a 'laryngeal'

Now you want to use the laryngeal to explain I-I /i/.

The development of /&/ (schwa, into which all vocalized
laryngeals had merged outside Greek) to /i/ in Indo-Iranian
is unremarkable.  The same thing happened again in Middle
Indo-Aryan with the syllabic resonant /r./ > /r&/ > /ri/ (as
in <kr.s.nah.> => <kris.n.a>).
 

***

Patrick:

 

Boy, you are a real conservative!     EINST LARYNGALISCH IMMER LARYNGALISCH!

 

First, is /ç/ a 'laryngeal'? How about /y/?

 

Oh, I see you have now dropped the suspect *&1, *&2, and *&3. Just as well, they were meaningless.

 

By the way, I like 6 better for schwa.

 

Anything can develop into anything but some anything are pretty rare.

 

What proof do you have for the phonetic reality of schwa as a result of all vocalized laryngeals outside Greek. Ah, well, another unanswered question, I would bet.

 

What proof do you have you’re the stage /r&/?

 

 

Patrick