Grzegorz:
> You say debate? So, if you want it to be debate,
> not a rude quarrel, then OK.
Alright, let's start afresh. (I wonder if Patrick
approves of "afresh" since he didn't like "akilter",
hehe).
> - by the way, I took a diagram from an old your
> site because I was not able to contact you and I
> hoped you would have no claims - tell me if you
> have).
This was my own graphic that I made myself. Please
feel free to do as you wish. I'm honoured that my
internet efforts have encouraged others.
On colourization of vowels by *q:
> I hope you know that my reservation are shared by
> many linguists - [...]
That *k is _unmarked_ is clear to any linguist who
knows his stuff about markedness because markedness
is uncontroversial. It's just plain ol' common sense.
Human speakers are lazy. They want the easy way out
when it comes to speech production. The arguements
for *k being unmarked and *k^ being marked remain
unchallenged. How can you deny that the most common
etyma reconstructed for IE happen to have the
supposed marked _*k^_? It's irrefutable that something
is amiss (Hehe, another a-word for Patrick.)
I don't doubt that many IEists simply ignore this
issue and work on other things though. In the end,
we can still use *k^ and *k as symbols but I
personally would rather see the reconstructions
reflect our most current knowledge.
> Have you heard about linguists who deny the
> presence of /a/ in IE?
Of course, and again, anyone who can say this
obviously doesn't have a knowledgeable enough grasp
of how languages in general work to be called a
"linguist". The data is more than clear that there
is *no* language that lacks a vowel "a". Ergo, IE
simply cannot lack a vowel "a". We can argue till
the cows come home as to whether *a is front, central
or back, but there is no doubt that there is *a of
some kind. So there is nothing left to discuss on
that and those researchers are dead wrong.
> And about those who deny the presence of neutral
> velars /k g gh/? Do you think they are arrogant or
> just stupid?
It could be a little of both. I know there are some
that would avoid changing their opinions because
they fear they may seem silly after publications
in their name showing their outdated views. It's a
Personality Type #1 thing and professors tend to
be of that personality type. I could care less what
people think of me because I have different
psychological issues :) I care more about Logic than
joining the MileHigh Club. :P
> Do you know their arguments? And can you say that
> they also dismiss facts arrogantly?
Yes. It's already clear that this is the case with
those who think that there is no *a in IE.
> You claim that each language have to have vowels of
> different height.
No, Grzegorz, I _insist_, _assert_ and _have
demonstrated_ that vowels must have height. The
onus is on you to find that single language that
lacks height amongst a billion that show consistently
the contrary.
You're now beating a dead horse in search of unicorns
and leprachauns. One has to accept that IE had *a
like *all* other known languages because to think
otherwise is logically absurd.
> Anyway, here are my questions:
>
> 1) What was the difference between IE phonemes /e/
> and /a/ - only in front-back or also in height?
In theory, *a would be low-central and *e would be
mid-front based on countless other vowel systems of
this same structure.
> 2) What is the basis for assumption that uvular
> sounds would cause the shift *e > *a?
Something *did* cause colouring. So take your pick
on what that was.
> And if you think /a/ was lower,[...]
Oh come now. Clearly, *a is lower. Your skepticism
is bordering on schizophrenia. You can't question
everything and the kitchen sink, can you?
> 3) Did only *k change *e into *a?
No, all phonemes of the marked class coloured them,
including *h2 as well. So yes, *G and *GH are
a part of this.
> Notice that _not all_ linguists claim that the
> neutral velars (or your uvulars) ever existed.
"Not all"? Should I really care what a handful of
crackpots imagine in their heads? Language universals
tell us that there were. I've never heard of a
language that only has marked dorsals. For example,
only /kW/ but no /k/. It would be rare, even if it
did exist and we can't be bothered with rarity if
we can reconstruct something more common... And we
can, thankfully!
> 4) Did other consonants change *e into *a?
I prefer to write coloured *a phonemically as *e.
Therefore, traditional *kap- I think should be
written *qep- with lengthened grade *qe:p- as I
mentioned before.
The "true" instances of *a, phonemic *a, would have
been caused by the pre-IE vocalisation of laryngeals
in zeroed syllables flanked by two consonants on
either side. In other words:
*CH1C- > *CeC
*CH2C- > *CaC
*CH3C- > *CuC
That would account for your list of *dak-, *kad-,
*kam- and *rad- which would have to have had this
"true" *a.
> 5) Do you think that PIE /a/ was really the phoneme?
Yes. Again, I stress that "coloured *a" should be
written as *e because it is in reality a different
phoneme. The phoneme *a would not have been zeroed
but *e clearly does.
> Can you show examples of minimal pairs, i.e. for
> both /e/ and /a/ in the same phonetical environment?
Well, *dak- (trad. *dak^-) and *dek- (trad. *dek^-)
should do nicely.
> 6) Reconstruction of IE /a/ is based exclusively on
> Greek and Italo-Celtic data. [...]
Not if we know that *a doesn't zerograde...
Think about it for a sec.
= gLeN
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com