Re: [tied] Re: PIE Ablaut [was] Re: Gypsies again

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 11:59:25 -0500, Patrick Ryan
<proto-language@...> wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>Patrick:
>
>I should have stated more precisely that there are _no_ traces of the
>_vocalic_ expressions of this Ablaut-phoneme in Anatolian or Indian. No one
>can doubt a *V/*Ø variation based on the stress-accent occurs in Anatolian
>and Indian.

And no one can doubt there is e/a variation in Anatolian.
I see no reason to treat Hittite any differently here than
all the other languages which have merged /o/ and /a/
(Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Albanian). Furthermore, /o/ and
/a/ had not merged in Proto-Anatolian: Lycian has */o/ > /e/
and */a/ > /a/.

>I am not sure what the notation above is intended to indicate since it
>corresponds to no phenomena that I can recognize occurring between PIE and
>Anatolo-Indian.
>
>So far as I know, the equation is simplicity itself: PIE *e, *a, *o > AI
><a>; PIE *e:, *a:, *o > AI <a:>.
>
>
>I realize you would like to assert that PIE *o > AI (IIr, probably, for
>you) <a:>.
>
>I just do not think that you (or Brugmann) proved the relationship. So many
>fine scholars have lined up on both sides of this issue that I am not sure
>what _I_ really can contribute except to say that the argument has not been
>made satisfactorily for me.
>
>The example you gave to prove your point: cakara/caka:ra has a long,
>checkered history of disputation. My best guess at present is that the
>lengthened vowel was simply introduced to provide a means of differentiating
>1st and 3rd persons.

And this happened only in open syllables?

There is no doubt in my mind that Brugmann's law is correct.

>> >> 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?)
>>
>> Just "pre-PIE".
>
>***
>Patrick:
>
>How would you distinguish it from the preceding phase, during which the
>vowel inventory was *i, *a, *u?

That vowel inventory was inherited from Proto-Nostratic, so
PN will do.

In general, I'm not keen on the idea of inventing all kinds
of names for pre-stages of languages, where the relative
chronology is something that needs to be worked out, and the
absolute chronology is completely unknown. Furthermore, you
would need a name for before and after each soundlaw.

>The whole point of our discussion, I thought, was whether *e~*o~*Ø was
>_pan_-IE. If AI (or IIr) did not have a separate reflex for PIE *o, then we
>have to scrub the 'pan'.

There *is* a separate reflex of /o/ in Indo-Iranian. Even
if you don't believe in Brugmann's law (which I don't
recommend), the same form <caká:ra> shows that */ke/ and
*/ko/ have different outcomes. You *do* believe in the law
of the palatals, I would hope?


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