On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 11:50:54 +0100, "fournet.arnaud"
<
fournet.arnaud@...> wrote:
>At 5:36:29 PM on Saturday, February 16, 2008, fournet.arnaud
>wrote:
>
>>> One of Miguel's posts includes such
>>> reconstructions as
>
>>> *ú:d-an > *wódr.
>>> with stressed long vowels and unstressed short ones.
>
>> *wodr is from
>> *H2ut?-
>> with -o- intrusion
>
>This is completely irrelevant to the issue that I was
>addressing, namely, your inaccurate claim that Miguel's
>reconstructions have only stressed short and unstressed long
>vowels.
>
>Brian
>
>==============
>
>Ok
>You are right on this point.
>
>Now
>
>I consider it farfetched to
>work with non-laryngeal *long* vowels
>in order to *erase* o.
The object is to *explain* the Ablaut alternations between
*o and *e or zero.
>I think PIE had *a/e *i *o *u as vowels
>with no long/short contrasts.
>
>I think the system (*a *a:) *i *i: *e *e:
>*u *u: is uselessly complicated
That's not the system I propose. My proposal involves 3x2
vowels in Pre-PIE (*a(:), *i(:) and *u(:)).
As to PIE *o (when not derived from *h3e), it shows the
following characteristics in Indo-European:
1) it is reflected as /a:/ in open syllables in
Indo-Iranian;
2) it is not reduced to <ä> in Tocharian (*o > e, while
*e/*i/*u > ä)
3) it is not coloured by a laryngeal (*h2o > o, *oh2 > o:),
a feature that it shares with *e:.
I conclude that *o was originally a long vowel **a: (or
**u:). The loss of length (except partially in Indo-Iranian)
is due to the fact that there was no short /o/ in the
system. Something similar happened much later in
Indo-Iranian with the reflexes of PIE *Vi and *Vu, which in
Pali are long /e:/, /o:/ in open syllables, short /e/, /o/
in closed syllables, while they are short /e/ and /o/ in
most other Prakrits.
The reflex of long **i: is PIE *e:, which remained distinct
from PIE short *e. It appears as "fundamental *e:" in a
number of words like for instance *yé:kWr. "liver" or the
"Narten" verbal roots such as *ste:u- "to praise".
In general, non-laryngeal length in PIE appears in:
1) "fundamental e:" (in my view, from pre-PIE *i:;
fundamental **a: and **u: appear as *o).
2) Lengthening of PIE *e and *o in the sequence *VCF#
(vowel-consonant-fricative-morpheme boundary). This worked
after the merger of *a/*i/*u to *e, but before the complete
loss of unstressed *& (shwa) [*& lengthens to *o]. We find
it mostly in the Nsg. of non-neuters (*hák^mo:n, *pó:ds,
*p&2té:rs, etc.), in the NA neuter (*udó:r(&2), *nebhós&2,
etc.) and in the s-aorist *bhé:rs-t.
3) Vr.ddhi of short *e, *o in thematic derivatives (e.g.
*o:ujóm "egg", *me:msóm [this could also fall under (2)]).
4) Contractions in grammatical endings. Loc.sg. of i- and
u-stems *-e:i, *-e:u (*-o:u) < *-ei-i, *-eu-u; Nom. sg.
*h2ákmõ < *h2ák^mo:n; Dat. sg. of o-stems *-o-éi > *-õi;
Gpl. *-õm < *-o-om or *-oj-m, etc.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
miguelc@...