From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 41042
Date: 2005-10-05
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 1:51 PM
Subject: 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/.
***
Patrick:
I guess you may call me Noone. Am I correct assuming that the basis for your
claim that PIE /*o/ and /*a/ had not merged in Proto-Anatolian is based on
the alleged Lycian equivalence /*o/ > /e/?
In view of PIE /*e/ > Lycian /e/, it looks to me as if the Proto-Anatolian
from which Lycian developed did not maintain or perhaps ever have the PIE
/*e/~/*o/ Ablaut variation. Perhaps you can convince me with something other
than dubious particles and inflections?
***
> >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?
***
Patrick:
Meaning no disrespect, but you might want to read up on the controversy in
which open syllables were a factor that was also considered and rejected by
some. I will not pretend to have exhaustively read the literature on this
question in depth but the picture painted in _The Laws of Indo-European_
does not seem to support your certainty.
***
>
> There is no doubt in my mind that Brugmann's law is correct.
***
Patrick:
Well, as you know, Brugmann had his doubts, and withdrew his proposal; after
Kuryl-owicz re-proposed it, he withdrew it. Perhaps if you propose it, it
will finally be accepted by all, and we can call it Carrasquer's Law.
But, as for the example you gave, I find it most unconvincing. Richard
mentioned that caká:ra was also in use for a 1st p. form and he also pointed
out that 1st p. would be more likely to be marked than 3rd p. I would say
that constitutes a medium argument for regarding the <a:> as vRddhi, and
purely for the purpose of differentiation. Also, I am not convinced that the
lost laryngeal could effectively close the syllable of the 1st p.
***
***
> >> >> 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.
***
Patrick:
Well, I can live with that but this is the Cybalist not Nostratic-L.
***
>
> 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.
***
Patrick:
Basically, I agree.
***
> >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?
***
Patrick:
I believe that during the pre-PIE (my Pontic) stage, PN *ke had become p-PIE
*kYa so that it entered PIE as *k^A. I do not believe that this
palatalization occurred as late as Proto-Anatolian; it was already there in
PIE. Satem and centum are just different responses to it.
***
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...