Re: *a/*a: ablaut

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:55:34 +0100, Piotr Gasiorowski
<gpiotr@...> wrote:

>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).

There's a third alternative (mine). I believe in
"fundamental" *a, but I think it is too infrequent to
represent a "fundamental" phoneme at the pre-proto-level.

Given the association of some "fundamental" *a's with nasals
(e.g. *manu-, *g^hans-), my favourite but hard to prove
conjecture is that *a represents nasalized *a:N. That would
explain the Ablaut of "salt":

*sá:l-s
*sál-m
*sál-(e/o)s

If that was:

*sá:ml-s
*sá:ml-m
*sa:ml-ás

and *a:N became nasalized /ã(:)/ at this point, the result
would be:

*sã'ls > sáls > sá:ls (Szemerényi lengthening)
*sã'lm > sálm > sálm.
*sãlás > sál&s > sáls (> sáles, sálos)


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
miguelc@...