From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 40959
Date: 2005-10-02
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2005 9:18 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Gypsies again
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Wordingham" <richard.wordingham@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Cc: <smykelkar@...>
> Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2005 5:55 PM
> Subject: [tied] Re: Gypsies again
>
>
> > I just received the following message from a former member. The 2nd and
> > 3rd
> > references of his are relevant for Romany origins, so I'm passing on
> > *without comment* the claim that pre-Sanskrit never had an a/e/o split.
> > I
> > can't remember us actually spending any significant time discussing it.
> >
> > Incidentally, we still haven't tried Kazanas's test paper - the question
> > on
> > the perfect in Section 14 of
> > http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/english/documents/SPIE.pdf does not look
> > simple
> > to answer!
> >
> > Richard.
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> The paper is interesting but has one glaring fault: the author believes
> that introspective observation of his own sound production has some
> evidentiary value for general linguistic principles. It does not.
>
> Otherwise, he makes valuable points about PIE vowel-grades.
>
> In all Proto-European (abstracting Proto-European from
> Proto-Anatolo-Indo-European) languages, we have abundant evidence of a
> phoneme which I prefer to call the Ablaut-phoneme, and indicate by *A; it
> has the expressions in real languages of <e>, <o>, and <Ø>.
>
> Desperate as the attempts have been to identify it, there are _no_ traces
> of this Ablaut-phoneme in Anatolian or Indian.
>
> Therefore, we must consider the Ablaut-phoneme strictly a Proto-European
> phenomenon, developed _solely_ by the Proto-European languages.
>
> Most of us, I hope, do not doubt that an earlier stage of the language
> which was the basis for Proto-Anatolo-Indo-European (and others) had three
> vowels: *i, *a, and *u.
>
> I do not know how many list-members would agree with me (and, I presume,
> Miguel) in reconstructing a phase, which I term Pontic (what do you call
> it, Miguel?), in which earlier *i and *u became *Ya and *Wa somewhat less
> early while *a remained unchanged (*W and *Y are glides indicating
> respectively palatalization and velarization).
>
> We can say that there was a reconstructable Proto-Anatolo-Indo-European
> language through the Pontic period but after *Y palatalized dorsals and *W
> velarized coronals, the ways parted for Proto-Anatolo-Indian and
> Proto-European. Proto-Anatolo-Indian retained <a> (and <Ø>) while
> Proto-European changed <a> to *A and also retained zero-grade (<Ø>).
>
> Palatal glides were eliminated in both branches both the velar glides were
> retained.
CORRECTION: Palatal glides were eliminated in both branches BUT the velar
glides were retained.
> There is no vRddhi-lengthening in Proto-European as there is in
> Proto-Anatolo-Indian; and this is quite possibly due to the fact that PAI
> did not have *e/*o variations to secondarily mark grammatical inflection
> so vRddhi filled this gap.
>
> The point which the author attempted to make regarding gun.a and vRddhi
> being two superior grades seems rather to be much the tempest in a teacup.
> For the life of me, I cannot see any significant difference or advantage
> in it over the present practice of classifying syllables as zero-, *e-, or
> *o-grade.
ADDITION:
Of course zero-/*e-/*o-grades apply only to Proto-European. Gun.a and vRddhi
are fine for Proto-Anatolo-Indian.
> ***
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/GP4qlB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>