Re: ka and k^a

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

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

> >> 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&).

Are you using '&' to mean schwa, or the 'a' in English _cat_? I
prefer to use '@' for the former and '&' for the latter.

Forgive my ignorance, but where did Slavic merge /i/ and /u/ to /&/?
If /i/, /u/, and /e/ > /&/ in Tocharian, why not /o/ also (unless /u/
had already undergone changes without /o/)?

Could you provide some of the attested languages that show short
vowels (particularly stressed ones) passing through a stage *& (*y&,
*w&)?

> >> 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

Is there often a distinction made between pretonic and posttonic
positions in languages? How does such a distinction come about?

> 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.

Why "immediately adjacent to a morpheme boundary" and nowhere else?

- Rob