Re: [tied] Re: PIE Ablaut

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <mcv@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: PIE Ablaut


> On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 20:40:53 -0500, Patrick Ryan wrote:
>
> > Although I have Collinge's summary of the currents that have swirled
> > around
> > this question, I do not have even reasonably easy access to the
> > literature
> > that contains the full arguments of protagonists and antagonists -
> > especially those advanced after 1985.
> >
> > I will, therefore, not offer any further comments on it.
> >
> > I hope there is someone on the list, at a university, who does have
> > access
> > to the full and current dossier on this question, and who will discuss
> > it
> > further with Jens.
> >
> > The only thing of which I am certain is that Brugmann's "Law", as
> > originally
> > formulated, has many exceptions like ávi- and ápas; and, according to
> > Collinge, Hirt accumulated 67 such non-conforming etyma.
> >
> > Have these questions been satisfactorily answered?
> >
> > According to what I infer from Collinge, as of 1985, they had not been.
>
> The "counterexamples" mentioned by Collinge aren't counterexamples.
> bharama:na- < *bheromh1no-, with */o/ in a closed syllable.
> apas-, anas- have *h3e-.
> The oblique pada: < *pedeh1 has e-grade, as expected.
> In the cases of avi- and pati-, we have closed syllables in the oblique
> (*h2owy-, *poty-), and in the case of pati-, even in the original
> nominative *pótyo:n, as preserved in Tocharian (petso).

***
Patrick:

Of course they are. Let us not play word games.

By Brugmann's _original_ formulation, they certainly would be
counterexamples.

By Brugmann's Law, there are counterexamples. To still call his basic idea
with the many qualifications that have been added like fingers in a leaking
dike Brugmann's Law is totally unjustifiable.

Brugmann asserted PIE *o to OI a: IN ALL OPEN SYLLABLES. I am capitalizing
this because it just does not seem to be taken into consideration here.

Of course, Brugmann renounced his own "law".

In the case of bharama:na, why does not *bheromh1no lead to OI *bhara:mana:?

I fear you will probably say that *h1 closes the previous syllable while, at
the same time, appearing as <a>. That reminds of of Kuryl-owicz who had the
decency to withdraw his qualification. And why should *h1 appear as <a:>?

Even with the qualification, the final *o must be apophonic; or do we now
introduce permanent *o?

Of course, the next qualification (Kleinhans) took care of that: now, the
open syllable had to be followed by a nasal or liquid.

That certainly takes care of part of the problem but <m> is a nasal, so
*bheromh1no now leads to **bhara:mana if one does not believe in the closing
power of <a>.

But, in view of *pá:dam, the last qualification is no solution either.

Now comes Kuryl-owicz who proposes a miraculous maintenance of *H in OI for
the 1st p. perfect so that cakár(H)a has a closed syllable. Of course, he
rightly renounced this explanation subsequently. K. realized, if some others
cannot, you may not both eat and have your cake.

Now comes the idea that *H3 rather than apophony accounts OI ápas- for
*op-os-. Then what accounts for a:s'ú- from *o:k^ú-s? I have already guessed
your answer: let heap up laryngeals until we get the phonological result we
want: *H3eH1k^u-. Closed syllable, of course!

Any other discrepancies: well, call in our old friend ANALOGY.

As for your *H2owy-, how does that relate to OP xa:ya, 'egg'?

This is a bad law; it has always been a bad law; and no amount of tinkering
will save it in the long run.

If the law simply asserted that PIE *o became OI *a: in open syllables, with
only a few exceptions to explain, it might be of interest; but it requires
laser surgery.

***