Re: Re[4]: [tied] Re: *a/*a: ablaut

Thank you for taking the time to
explain your system.
It helps understand
the way you think
even though I may disagree.
Arnaud

I understood :
a i u > e
a: u: > o
i: > e:
===============

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:.

Miguel
====================
My spontaneous linguistic objection
is that your system makes long vowels
[a:] [o:] > [o] as frequent
as short ones.
Unnatural.

1) this may be an innovation of Indo-Iranian.
That kind of reasoning would be better if
a conservative language like Greek did the same.
2) so what ?
3) the absence of coloring proves nothing.
Only *e H1e and *a H2e are allophonic.

Arnaud
================

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.
Miguel
==================
-is due- ?
It sounds a bit adhoc.
I'm really sceptical that a long vowel could shorten
in a system where the general direction is
more and more long vowels arise
because of the fusion with decaying laryngeals.

It's like saying Semitic first lost glottalization in
certain consonants before it developped emphasis.

Arnaud
===========

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).

Miguel
==============
How many words like *ye:kwr exist ?
How can we be sure that this is not a innovation ?
Greek has long o: in words like tho:r "flatterer"
etc that are innovative in my point of view.

In fact your documentation for length in pre-PIE
relies *ONLY* on *e: which could be an innovation
of Central PIE.
How do you account for latin jecur with short e ?
I see no reason why it should have shortened.
this *ye:kwr is non supported by Latin.

Do you have examples of e:
which are e: in Latin ? or Celtic ?

Arnaud
====================


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.
Miguel

3) Vr.ddhi of short *e, *o in thematic derivatives (e.g.
*o:ujóm "egg", *me:msóm [this could also fall under (2)]).

Miguel
==========
I disagree with both reconstructions.
Do you have other words ?

Arnaud
=========