Re: [tied] Re: Short and long vowels

From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 39296
Date: 2005-07-18

 
----- Original Message -----
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 /รง/ 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.
 
***