From: Rick McCallister
Message: 53209
Date: 2008-02-15
> 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@...
>
>