--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "etherman23" <etherman23@...> wrote:
>
> I was looking at some PIE roots today and noticed some interesting
> distributions of diphthongs.
>
> 1) Roots in *tei- are nonexistent
> 2) Roots in *weu- are nonexistent
> 3) Roots in *yei- are nonexistent
> 4) Roots in *gW(H)eu-/*kWeu-/k'weu- are nonexistent
>
> However,
>
> 5) Roots in *trei- exist
> 6) Roots in *stei- exist (here s- can, but doesn't have to be, s-mobile)
> 7) Roots in *wei- are common
> 8) Roots in *gW(H)ei-/*kWei-/k'wei are common
>
Standard ablaut scheme for the vowels a, i ,u:
e, o, zero
ei, oi, i
eu, ou, u
My ablaut scheme:
Proto-PIE
a, a, zero
i:, i:, i
u:, u:, u
becomes
e, o, zero
ei, ei, i
ou, ou, u
and by analogy
e, o, zero
ei, oi, i
eu, ou, u
I think it makes more sense phonologically, its development is
not unlike that of English or German. Also, it starts with the
three vowels a, i, u, not the single vowel a(?) of the classic
system.
So your constraints rewrite to:
1) Roots in *ti:-/*ti- are nonexistent
2) Roots in *wu:-/*wu- are nonexistent
3) Roots in *yi:-/*yi- are nonexistent
4) Roots in
*gW(H)u:-/*gW(H)u-/
*kWu:-/*kWu-/
*k'wu:-*k'wu-
are nonexistent
Rule 1) now even more strongly suggests you're right.
Rules 2), 3) and 4) must have to do with place of articulation.
Pulleyblank has a theory, by which in Proto-PIE *k (standard *k^,
he rejects the plain velars), *x (=*h2) and *kW, *xW (=h3) are
supplemented with kJ, xJ, and
*kJ > *st
*xJ > *s
Also *n,W > *gW, *w > *gW.
Torsten