Re: [tied] Re: ka and k^a

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: ka and k^a


> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:00:34 -0500, Patrick Ryan
> <proto-language@...> wrote:
>
>
> >But, since you follow these matters more closely than I, is the
> >prevailing
> >theory at this moment that *H2 does not color *o when before or after it?
> >
> >And, if that is the prevailing view, why would that be?
>
> Why would it be the prevailing view? Because it's what best
> fits what can be observed.
>
> Why would */o/ be immune to laryngeal colouring? Well, I
> think it's significant that */e:/ is also immune to it. If
> */o/ was originally a long vowel, that would explain it.

***
Patrick:

The arguments that have been advanced to explain _why_ H2 'colors' *e-vowels
to *a involve the influence of the its physical production on vowel
position.

It is rather difficult to see why *H2 would not also affect *o in some way.

Of course, I do not subscribe to vowel 'coloring' of any kind.

***
>
> I reconstruct a 2x3 vowel system for pre-PIE. Under the
> stress, the normal developments were:
>
> *a > *e
> *i > *e
> *u > *e
>
> *a: > *o:
> *i: > *e:
> *u: > *o:


***
Patrick:

What reasons do you have for believing that pre-PIE had an *i, *a, *u vowel
inventory vs. *e, *a, *o?

***

> Because *o: had no short counterpart, the length was not
> contrastive and could be lost (but *ó is still long in open
> syllables in Indo-Iranian, and does not get reduced to /ä/
> in Tocharian [as are /e/, /i/ an /u/]).
>
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>