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

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:08:46 +0000, Rob
<magwich78@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>> 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.
>
>Good point! I hadn't thought of that.
>
>> 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:
>
>Are there any attested languages in the world that reflect such
>changes?

If we assume that the merger of the short vowels passed
through a stage *& (*y&, *w&), there are plenty of attested
languages that show evidence of such a phenomenon. The
merger of /i/ and /u/ to /&/ is particularly common (e.g.
Slavic), but a lower vowel may also be affected (e.g.
Tocharian /i/, /u/, /e/ > /&/). And /&/ > /e/ is also
rather common (e.g. Catalan: Mallorcan k&d&na > Mainland
East Catalan k&dEn&).

>It seems to me that: 1) any language would preserve the quality of
>stressed vowels more faithfully than unstressed; and 2) an originally
>triangular vowel system would tend to develop lowered and/or laxed
>allophones in unstressed (or closed) syllables. However, some Arabic
>dialects have a partial merger of */a/ and */i/ (realized as [e] or
>[E]).
>
>I wonder if any given language must have at least *one* of two
>contrasts (height and/or frontness), but that one is not more basic
>than the other?
>
>> 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/]).
>
>Unstressed */o/ is also long in InIr, though: e.g. Vedic _ma:náyati_
>< *monéyeti.

I didn't say it wasn't.

I limited my diagram above to stressed position not to
complicate matters. But if you insist:

In pretonic position, the normal developments are:

*a > 0
*i > 0
*u > 0

*a: > *e
*i: > 0
*u: > 0

In posttonic position, short vowels were lengthened unless
the stressed and/or posttonic syllable was already
long/heavy, and we have:

*a > 0 / *o
*i > 0 / *e(:)
*u > 0 / *o

*a: > *o
*i: > *e(:)
*u: > *o

Immediately adjacent to a morpheme boundary *i(:) and *u(:)
usually keep the glide, so we have *yé (~ *í), *y (~ *i) and
*ye(:); *wé (~ *ú), *w (~ *u) and *wo.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...