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 5:37 PM

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

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 16:47:43 -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 3:35 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@...<mailto:proto-language@...>> wrote:
>
> >Pre-PIE had three vowels: *e, *a, and *o.
> >
> >These vowels entered into combination with the 'laryngeal', *H, to produce *e:, *a:, and *o: in PIE.
> >
> >All pre-PIE short vowels became PIE *A, the Ablaut vowel/segment, which eventually had the manifestations *e, *o, or *Ø; which form *A took was a function of stress-accentual conditions.
> >
> >PIE retained pre-PIE *e:, *a:, and *o: unchanged.
> >
> >In many PIE-derived languages, the zero-grade of *e: was *e; of *a:, *a; and of *o:, o.
>
> "Many" here to be read as "one".
>
> >Indo-Iranian changed all PIE *e, *a, and *o to <a>.
> >
> >In open syllables, *o was further modified to <a:>.
> >
> >Indo-Iranian changed all PIE *e:, *a:, and *o: to <a:>.
> >
> >The zero-grade of Indo-Iranian <a> was <Ø> where possible; although various devices were used to ameliorate difficult combinations.
> >
> >The zero-grade of Indo-Iranian <a:> was .
>
> Only if <a:> was derived from *eH, *oH.
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> Now I am really surprised at you. What happened to sthitá??? Is that not from *aH?

No. It's from *sth2tó-.

***

Patrick:

Forgive me, but you are being obtuse.

sthitá is from sthá:- which is from *sthaH-.

***

> ***
>
> Not for <a:> from */o/ in an open syllable, nor for <a:>
> derived from PIE long */e:/ (the zero grade of both is <a>).
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> Is it late at night where you are writing?
>
> You are making no sense at all.
>
> Above this, on this page, you affirmed that Old Indian <a:> comes from PIE *eH and *oH.

And you affirmed (correctly!) that "[i]n open syllables, *o
was further modified to <a:>".

Now I don't know what exact chronology you have in mind, but
I merely wanted to point out that not all Indo-Iranian
/a:/'s have a zero-grade /i/. Just the ones with a
laryngeal origin.

***

Patrick:

And what is the source for these other Indo-Iranian <a:>'s?

***

> Pre-PIE *eH becomes PIE *e: which in turn becomes Old Indian <a:>.
>
> For all Old Indian <a:>, the zero-grade is .

Obviously not.

***

Patrick:

Prove it.

***

> ______________________
>
> If you do not believe this, give me one example of PIE *e: which became Old Indian <a:> which has the zero-grade <a>.

3sg. ta:s.t.i -- 3pl. taks.ati

***

Patrick:

You have been learning tricks from someone else on the list; when in doubt, change the subject. I am not prepared in this series of postings to discuss every exception to the rule under the sun.

What I clearly implied was: show me a -tá participle that had a base form with <a:> that does not show up as in the participle. Your changing of the subject shows it is either difficult or impossible.

But because your example is so silly, I will make an exception.

The verbal root is taks.-.

Notice, no long vowel.

The 3rd p. sing. should be taks.ti. For ease of pronounciation, the /k/ has been eliminated, and the vowel has been compensatorily lengthened.

This has no bearing whatsoever on anything we have been discussing, and I resent your wasting my time with it.

***

***
> ______________________
>
> Also, do you have even one example of PIE *o, which because of it being in an open syllable, became Old Indian <a:> which has the zero-grade <a>? If so, provide it.

nom/acc. pa:t, pa:dam -- gen. padas (etc.)

***

Patrick:

Same comments as above.

We have pa:t as a result of a reduction from *pads. The genitive shows the original vowel. The accusative has been improperly built on the nominative.

Really! Where is the 'laryngeal' is all this. Do you know what we are discussing? It is not Old Indian <a:> from any cockeyed source, it is only <a:> from 'laryngeals'.

***

Miguel's next comments have been snipped by e. They make no sense whatsoever.

> And what about Indo-Iranian /a:y/ (Vedic <ai>)?
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> Well, sorry I did not make this a little clearer.
>
> The first result of pre-PIE *VH was /Vç/. In most PIE-derived languages, this became /V:/ but in Indo-Iranian, it was first /aç/ and then voiced to /ay/ (almost long English ).
>
> This distinguished it from <a> + , which became first /ai/ then /ei/ when /a/ assimilated to /i/. /ei/ was written <ê> (long English <a>).

Iranian has /ai/, so that doesn't wash.

***

Patrick:

Of course it washes. When I write <e:>, you must know I mean Old Indian. Iranian stopped short of assimilating /a/ to /i/ and remained at /ai/.

> Inspite of their slight difference in pronunciation, it was enough to maintain a spelling difference.
>
> When /ay/ was zero-graded/ the result was /y/, which was vocalized to /i/.
>
> As for PIE *Vçi, which became PIE *V:I, and Indo-Iranian /açi/, which was vocalized to /ayi/ so that Vedic <ai> should be thought of as representing /ayi/ at the earliest stage.

Again, you seem to be blissfully unaware of Iranian. Old
Persian writes Ca-a-i for /a:i/, as opposed to Ca-i for
/ai/. And the Old Persian syllabary had a sign for /yi/.

***

Patrick:

I am never blissful at being unaware of anything.

Since I dabble in Sumerian, I am full aware of plene spellings.

So what significance do you believe the Old Persian 'revelations' have for this discussion?

***