From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 52793
Date: 2008-02-12
----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 2:36 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [tied] Re: The meaning of life: PIE. *gWiH3w-
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Piotr Gasiorowski
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
>
> > I believe there is sufficient evidence to reconstruct PIE
> > *a as an independent phoneme
> > Piotr
> > ==========
> >
> > I definitely disagree
> >
> > What is your sufficient evidence ?
> >
> > Arnaud
> > =================
>
> Lots of unpredictable *a's that have to be considered phonemic. If *a
> were always conditioned by an adjacent laryngeal, it would be best
> analysed as an allophone of *e. However, it occurs also as the outcome
> of sporadic (and therefore unpredictable) retraction of *e next to
> "plain velars" (as in *kan-, *kap-, *bHag-, *magH- vs. *(s)ker-, *sek-,
> *legH-) and in other roots, where it isn't conditioned by anything
> (*wa:stu-/*wastu- 'settlement', *k^asó- 'grey', *gHla:dH-u-/*gHladH-ro-
> 'smooth', *hna(:)s- 'nose', *wa(:)g^- 'strike' etc.).
>
> Piotr
> ==================
> *lots of* ??
> I can't see so many *a.
> And *a can also be an unstressed lubricating schwa
> to avoid uneasy contacts between consonants.
> Sporadic because unstressed.
>
> It's quite absurd to write that a(:) is not conditioned by anything.
> obviously a(:) is eH2 and °H2.
>
> You are unconvincing.
>
> Arnaud
> =====================
>
>
>
>
>
>