From: tgpedersen
Message: 52572
Date: 2008-02-10
> > Extra evidence: besides consonant stems, PIE has -i, -u andMiguel's theory or mine?
> > thematic stems, ie (the latter) stems ending in the thematic
> > vowel. If PPIE was a three-vowel language (i, a, u), we'd have a
> > perfect match.
> >
> >
> > Well, let us take this a step at a time.
> >
> > You are saying PPIE had three vowels, which I interpret to mean
> > that roots had three basic forms: *CiC, *CaC, and *Cuc.
> >
> > Your Ablautvokal in PIE derives from PPIE *a.
> >
> > What happened to *CiC and *CuC?
>
>
> PPIE a -> e, o, zero.
> PPIE i -> i:, i:, i -> ei, ei, i -> ei, oi, i
> PPIE u -> u:, u:, u -> ou, ou, u -> eu, ou, u
>
> The last step was made for systematic reasons, not phonological ones
> (and only partially).
>
> Part of this is from Miguel's lectures (in the archives), but he
> posits long PPIE vowels here, the short ones are use to generate k,
> k^, kW etc (and even corresponding non-velars). The idea that the
> development was the phonologically plausible i: -> ei, u: -> ou
> followed by non-phonological Systemzwang (especially in the
> supposedly Semitic-influenced Germanic) is my own, I believe.
>
>
> Torsten
>
> ***
>
> You are putting your fresh blood into someone else's rotting corpse.
>
> If what you have outlined is true,
> every _short_ PPIE *i and *u should show up as PIE *CíC and *Cúc.In Miguel's PPIE > PIE phonology
> There are no such roots.
>
> There, the process is fatally flawed.