Re: *a/*a: ablaut

Thank you very much for information _without_ the cake icing.

Obviously, there is no way I can immerse myself in the latest literature
which, I have the feeling, you do. But I would have thought I would have
heard of *&.

But is this not a real sonor ex machina?

The major objection I would have to it (*i, *u, *&, *a) is, that to my way
of thinking, it is asymmetrical: one height level for front and back but two
heights for central.

Plus, the road by which we get to *& is a little circular, I think.


Patrick

----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 5:55 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] *a/*a: ablaut


> Patrick Ryan pisze:
>
> > Is this pre-PIE fourth vowel [&] generally accepted now in PIEist
> > circles?
>
> There isn't much discussion of pre-PIE vowels, so it's hard to say if
> there is any kind of consensus about the "pre-proto" system. I suppose
> it's widely accepted that the *e/*o/*zero ablaut pattern is derivable
> from a single vowel (no matter what its precise quality -- *e would do
> just as well as *&) and that most *a's, and many *o's, are due to the
> laryngeal colouring of an original *e. Those who believe in a
> "fundamental" *a(:) vowel are left with little choice. They must either
> reconstruct a second non-high vowel, lower than the first (i.e. an *e/*&
> : *a contrast) already in pre-PIE, or treat all non-laryngeal *a roots
> as somehow extraneous (borrowed, onomatopoeic -- whatever).
>
> Piotr
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>