Re: [tied] Re: Short and long vowels

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

From: Richard Wordingham

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 6:43 PM

Subject: [tied] Re: Short and long vowels

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@......> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:31:20 -0500, Patrick Ryan
> <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.

Let's see if I can understand what Patrick is trying to convey:

1) In general, pre-PIE short *e, *a and *o (or some similar trio of
vowels) merged.  However, the distinctions were preserved next to
laryngeals.

2) The zero grades from *eH, *aH and *oH were extra-short vowels *e_X,
*a_X, *o_X.  Compensatory lengthening need not have happened here.
(Incidentally, is plain *eH > e: necessarily PIE?  It may be common
recorded IE, but that is a different matter.)

3) In Greek, the extra short vowels became normal short vowels.
Elsewhere they merged to give what used to be seen as PIE *&, which
merged with *i in Indo-Iranian and with *a elsewhere.

Is Point 2 so incredible?

 

***

Patrick:

 

Personally, Point 2 does not bother me. It results in much the same as I have postulated.

 

But Point 3 strikes me as a step backward. I am trying to explain _why_ we have specifically <i> in Old Indian.

 

Merge with /i/, why not with /u/? See my point?