Re: [tied] Re: PIE Word Formation (2)

On 2006-04-04 01:13, aquila_grande wrote:

> I am scheptical about the idea that IE originally had only one wovel.

I don't make the stronger claim ("PIE had no primary high vowels"). On
the other hand, it is rather obvious that many instances of *i and *u
are secondary, resulting from the vocalisation of glides or (as in the
model I support) from the phonetic reduction of non-high vowels in some
positions.

> For example: Why propose that all -u is the reduction or an -ew and
> all -i the reduction of an -ei, when there ideed exist cases of -u
> and -i without any ablaut althernation i/ei and u/eu.
>
> And also in many cases where such an ablaut exist, the original state
> could have been a plain -i or -u, and the ablaut been a result from
> analogy.

I have already said that some full grades are analogical. This is
especially clear in those cases where the full vowel is "misplaced", as
in *deiwos.

> And why propose that all -a has the originin an h2 + an -e?, in cases
> where the h2 has left no other trace anywhere?

Again, I nowhere propose any such thing. There are linguists who
emphatically deny the existence of "non-laryngeal" *a in PIE, but I'm
not one of them.

> I think this standard consept about the original IE phonologyis far
> too schematic.

Then I'm glad it isn't _my_ concept :-)

Piotr