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

From: P&G
Message: 41048
Date: 2005-10-05

> PIE *o > AI <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 ...

The only exceptions are
(a) before a laryngeal which closes the syllable
(b) a handful of words which do not have ablauting e/o, but some other

As far as I understand it, the debate is about these exceptions, not about
the principle itself.
So the cakara / caka:ra debate is about whether or not the laryangeal in the
first person is the cause for the lack of lengthening. It is not about the
basic idea that PIE *o > AI a: in an open syllable.

We find this lengthening in both nouns and verbs, where PIE ablaut predicts
an *o in an open syllable. A classic example is the causatives :
PIE pattern *CoC-eye- > AI Ca:C-aya-.
PIE pattern *CoCC-eye > AI CaCC-aya
PIE pattern *CoCH-eye > AI CaC-aya