Re: *a/*a: ablaut

On 2008-02-12 22:21, fournet.arnaud wrote:

> Your opinion "more plausibly", "unlikely" "would be"
> You are not proving anything
> but expressing your own subjectivity.

(1) In a transparent compound one would not expect word-internal
treatment of *dH (see <pontifex> etc.).

(2) Unextended *dHeh1- was lost from Italic.

(3) By positing *-doh3-t- we escape both problems.

(4) This *doh3-t- is parallel e.g. to *pleh1-t- in <locuples>. The
vocalism of *dHoh1-t- would not be parallel to anything.

The view that *doh3- is more likely here is not only mine.

> "once a phoneme, always a phoneme"
> *vanishingly* rare is subjective.

I'm not saying that PIE *o wasn't a phoneme. Of course it was, but in
nearly all cases it was morphophonologically related to *e in the same
root, e.g. *wo:kW-s vs. *wekWos (*-es-). "Derived" is not the same as
"allophonic".

> I am still waiting for a clear case of *CaC-vowel
> constrasting with *CeC-vowel or *CoC-vowel.

If the cases I've presented so far are not clear enough, explain why you
think so.

Piotr