--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"
<richard.wordingham@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-
language@...>
> wrote:
>
> Richard:
> > 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.
>
> What are you postulating phonetically then? Your ideas as you
phrase
> them are open to ridicule, and I expressed my best understanding of
> what you are trying to say. I suppose the laryngeal may have
survived
> quite late - laryngeals are discernible, for example, in the
metre of
> the Rgveda.
>
> > But Point 3 strikes me as a step backward. I am trying to
explain
> _why_ we have specifically <i> in Old Indian.
>
> But Point 3 is the observed outcome. Are you disputing it?
>
> > Merge with /i/, why not with /u/? See my point?
>
Patrick,
I hope you realize how unclear you are being. Some people seem to be
orthodox laryngealists who respond to your heresy by just restating
the orthodox doctrine rather than following the heresy to see where
it leads. Richard at least tried to understand you, but you rejected
at least part of his interpretation. I too have an open mind on the
subject, but I am confused by what you say. Here is what I do and
don't understand of your theory:
You say in Pre-PIE:
*VH > *V: for example *dheH > *dhe:, *staH > *sta:, *doH > *do:
I am unclear on whether the laryngeal survives this: On the one
hand, you said in a previous post that the laryngeal "sacrifices"
itself. On the other hand, you still find the laryngeal in your II
analysis. So I take it what you really mean is:
*VH > *V:H for example *dheH > *dhe:H, *staH > *sta:H, *doH > *do:H
Where the H in the result is lost in Greek with no further effect.
I am unclear on what time frame you think that the zero-grade change
happens in: On the one hand, I had always understood that zero-grade
(and Ablaut generally) was a PIE (if not Pre-PIE) phenomenon. On the
other hand you talk about zero-grade in your II analysis. So there
are two possibilities:
Case 1: Zero-grade before II
Zero-grade shortens the long vowel:
*V:H > *VH for example *dhe:H + *tós > *dheHtós, *sta:H + *tós >
*staHtós, *do:H + *tós > *doHtós
Later the normal II changes occur.
*dheHtos > *dhaHtas, *staHtos > *sthaHtas, *doHtos > *daHtas
Brugmann is not relevant because the syllable is closed by the H.
The laryngeal at this time is realized by /ç/ so we have:
*dhaçtas, *sthaçtas, *daçtas
This undergoes a zero-grade change (a second one?!) to:
*dhçtas, *sthçtas, *dçtas
/ç/ is voiced to /i/, producing the attested results:
*dhçtas > dhitas, *sthçtas > sthitas, *dçtas > ditas
Case 2: Zero-grade _not_ before II
The normal II changes occur.
*dhe:Htos > *dha:Htas, *sta:Htos > *stha:Htas, *do:Htos > *da:Htas
The laryngeal at this time is realized by /ç/ so we have:
*dha:çtas, *stha:çtas, *da:çtas
This undergoes a zero-grade change presumably to:
*dhaçtas, *sthaçtas, *daçtas
From here I don't see how we can get from here to the attested
results.
If I've misinterpreted other than where I've _said_ I don't
understand, please consider that you may not have explained well.
Tom