Re: [tied] Re: PIE Ablaut

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <mcv@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 1:26 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: PIE Ablaut


> On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 23:52:36 -0500, Patrick Ryan wrote:
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <mcv@...>
> >> 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:>?
>
> a: is the normal development of a long syllabic nasal.

***
Patrick:

And what, pray tell, makes it long?

***

>
> We have Skt. -Vma:na-/-Ca:na-, Avestan -mna-, Grk, -meno-, so it must come
> from *-mh1no-. The preceding syllable is closed.

***
Patrick:

No, what I see you have is PIE -*meno, with arbitrary vRddhi in OI. What,
besides your need for a syllable _closer_ to except the preceding <a> from
becoming <a:>, indicates that the preceding syllable is closed.

***
>
> > Even with the qualification, the final *o must be apophonic;
>
> Which final o? The thematic vowel you mean?

***
Patrick:

-*men-o, that *o.


***


> > Of course, the next qualification (Kleinhans) took care of that: now,
> > the
> > open syllable had to be followed by a nasal or liquid.
>
> Kleinhans is wrong.
>
> > 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!
>
> You guessed wrong. Even if this were a case of Brugmann's law, which it
> obviously isn't, one would need an _open_ syllable, not a closed one. And
> given Greek o:kús, it cannot be a case of Brugmann's law, since the law
> does not apply to Greek.

***
Patrick:

Somehow, after discussing this in probably 8 postings, I strongly suspected
that Brugmann's "Law" did not apply to Greek.

Well, from my viewpoint, the syllabification is a:-s'ú from pre-PIE
*Hukhiwa - no closed syllable.

You are going to explain ápas- as excepted from "Brugmann" because the *o is
not apophonic but rather from laryngeal vocalic coloring of *e through *H3,
are you not?

So why did *o from this source in a open syllable not become OI *a:? Please
do not innocently repeat: "only from apophonic ..." Why would OI treat an
open a:'s differently?


***

> > Any other discrepancies: well, call in our old friend ANALOGY.
> >
> > As for your *H2owy-, how does that relate to OP xa:ya, 'egg'?
>
> It doesn't. The "egg" word (assuminmg OP x- is secondary) has *o:, so
> it's
> got nothing to do with Brugmann's law.

***
Patrick:

So, how do you reconstruct the pre-PIE form for '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.
>
> The law is fine. It's apparently your understanding of it that's flawed,
> or you wouldn't have offered *o:k^ús and *o:wyóm as bogus
> counterarguments.

***
Patrick:

That(*o:k^ús) was not an illustration of the law but rather of the
self-serving addition of laryngeals until all jibes. As for *o(w)y-om, I see
no need for an initial long vowel. So your explanation falls short of
explaining much to me.

Now, I confess, my "understanding" is "flawed" as to what in Heaven's name
you meant when you wrote above:

PCR: As for your *H2owy-, how does that relate to OP xa:ya, 'egg'?
________
"It doesn't. The "egg" word (assuminmg OP x- is secondary) has *o:, so it's
got nothing to do with Brugmann's law."
________

It does not??? It looks to me as if *Howy- has become *Ho:y and OP xa:ya (*o
to *o: as compensation for elision for *w).

And why would you reconstruct *H2o rather than *H3e?

And do you reject Avestan ap-a:vaya- meaning 'without eggs/testicles'?



How do you understand the "Law"? Why not state it for us in the form to
which you subscribe, including all qualifying exceptions.

***