>What is the reason Hittite i or e
>should be read as long ?
Arnaud
=============
The plene spelling.
Anyway, the length of /e:/ in Hittite is irrelevant (all
short /e/'s are lengthened when stressed in Hittite). What
matters is the Ablaut /e:/ ~ /0/. In a word like *k^é:rd,
*k^r.d-', the evidence supports that overwhelmingly.
Miguel
=============
Hm Hm
So there is not a single word out of Central PIE
to support /e:/.
You are in fact confirming my feeling
that /e:/ is an innovation of Central PIE.
Some Greek words have long o:
klo:ps "stealer"
tho:ps "flatterer"
tro:ks "worm"
sko:r "s*t"
Obviously /o:/ is an innovation
so I cannot see why /e:/ should not be
an innovation as well.
About all IE languages have created
their own "tinkering" innovative processes
with vowel length.
Germanic class VII etc
Arnaud
===============
Now as you have taken the time
to explain your system,
I have to explain mine.
Basically I work with four vowels
*o *a
*u *i
No length
There is some indication that
the oldest layer of words had in
fact only two vowels because
stressed *o = unstressed *u
stressed *a = unstressed *i
the four sounds are in fact
two pairs of accentual allophones.
Ultimately the super-proto-system is
*o and *a
with stress position being relevant.
About nothing happened.
*o > PIE *o
*a split into *a and *e (H2 H1)
*i remained *i
and
*u became traited like a consonantic
feature in PIE and PAA.
In PAA
*a and *i are unchanged
*o > *u
and *u is one of the cause of emphasis.
*kw *k? > *q
Length exhibited by Semitic is
an innovation.
You don't need length to account for
either Egyptian or Tchadic.
Now,
if we take an example,
there is a widespread system
Verb *CaC-
Suffix *in? "instrument that performs *CaC-"
Example :
Semitic &ayin "eye"
Chinese Fuzhou ngaing "eye"
proto-Chinese *ngay "to see"
PIE *dhay "to see" < *t?-&ay
Uralic *nay "to see" < ngay.
(*ng > & is regular PAA and PIE)
Other example :
Basque ezpa-in "lip" < *zap-in
LAtin bab-inâ "animal's lip"
The -a- in latin is schwa
I am pointing at the -in- suffix.
All languages have -i- in the suffix.
and -a- in the root.
If you have a counter-example,
I will be grateful.
I think your system is highly complicated
and presupposes a complete
rearrangement of PIE vocalism
which from my point of view
conflict with the rest of the world.
I believe PIE is conservative
because PIE morphology has kept
*o and *e (<*a) which were
accented allophones as
the main vowels.
*i and *u which were weak
from the start never managed to
enter the true morphology
at any time.
In other words, I think your system
unduly tries to project into the past
of PIE, features that are in fact
innovations of Central PIE.
Your system is probably brilliant
(I still have to understand it)
but I'm not sure what it accounts for.
Maybe Central PIE worked
the way you say.
Maybe or probably so.
But I disagree it can apply to PIE
and least of all to Pre-PIE.
Arnaud
==============
*