Re: [tied] Re: Short and long vowels

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

From: Miguel Carrasquer

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 12:16 AM

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

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:49:17 -0500, Patrick Ryan
<proto-language@...> wrote:

>  From: Miguel Carrasquer<mailto:mcv@...>
>  If all vocalized 'laryngeals' merge as /i/ in Vedic (with the exception I mentioned of dha:ta), with what justification can you label them *&1, *&2, *&3? Would not simply *& do?

Not for PIE.

 

***

Patrick:

 

I asked for Vedic? Not PIE.

 

***

>  Now I will ask you again, what proof do you have that PIE *e:, *a:, and *o:, when zero-graded,  could ever become /e/, /a/, or /o/ in Old Indian - even transitorily?

That question cannot be answered.  Zero-grade *eh1, *eh2,
*eh3 give *h1, *h2, *h3 in pre-PIE (which is the proper time
frame for zero-grade).  Under the right syllabic
circumstances, these are vocalized to *&1, *&2, *&3 in PIE.
Post-PIE, they merge to *& in the dialects ancestral to
Indo-Iranian, and *& gives /i/ in Vedic.
 

***

Patrick:

 

Precisely, it cannot be answered. But in a previous posting you wrote that because they did not appear in zero-grade, & had to be assumed.

 

There is _no_ *eh1, *eh2, *eh3 in pre-PIE; there is only *eH, *aH, and *oH.

 

The laryngeal component of e/a/oH is first transformed into /ç/ then into /y/ and, in zero-grade /i/ in Indo-Iranian.

 

In Greek, the laryngeals were eliminated when lengthened vowels were formed; in zero-grade, the short vowels re-appear.

 

***