Re: Finnish KASKI

Jouppe,

I really appreciate the careful thought you give to your answers for my
questions.

You are obviously very knowledgeable, and I feel pleased to share you as a
resource on this list.

But, still, was *ü in the original PU vowel inventory?

The reason I ask is because I am, what you might call, a Noahist who
believes that all languages descend from a common source.

I can easily see a PU vowel scheme of *i, *a, *u, or *e, *a, *o, or even *i,
*e, *a, *u, *o but it is difficult for me to see how *ü would fit into any
of the schemes above.

I guess I am looking for you to tell me that *ü is a result of a mechanism
or group of them as you explained for *ö, and consequently cannot be
earliest PU. It certainly would be the odd man out?

But, maybe I hope in vain.


Patrick

----- Original Message -----
From: "jouppe" <jouppe@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 10:58 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: Finnish KASKI


Thinking more in depth I have to lay down a few caviats though:

Quote
> Let me put it to you that I believe Umlaut could be termed limited
vowel
> harmony.
>
>
> Patrick
Unquote

In vowel harmony the vowels in the two syllables are "locked in
tandem". In a certain sense this appears as the opposite of umlaut,
in which the whole point is that one causes a change of the other.

In the most typical germanic umlaut (at least nordic languages have
other types as well) the vowel causes the phonemization of an
allophonic vowel quality in the previous syllable only as a result of
dissapearing in itself. This is also a very different process from
complete vowel harmony.

If you want to see uralic vowelharmony as a rule whereby the vowel of
one syllable is conditioned by the other you must definitely perceive
it as the latter being conditioned by the first. Also this is the
opposite from Germanic.

Also in Scandinavian umlaut not only "fronting" is at work, but
also "lowering" and "brytning" (*-e- > -ja/jä-) caused by /a/ and lip-
rounding and "brytning" (*-e- > -jo/jö-) caused by /u/.
Again very different from vowel harmony, where coexistance of front-
versus back vowels is the only issue.

Also Umlaut is a way of primarely describing a change in the
language, while vowel harmony describes a state.

All in all the phenomenons are similar but yet very different. I
would almost go as far as to say they are mutually exclusive. You
cannot make any sense of talking about i-umlaut in a language which
is restricted by the rules of front/back vowel harmony.

Some confusion may arise from the fact that in Finno-Ugric the final
vowels, front /-i/ and back /-ï/, have merged into a phonemically
neutral vowel /-i/ (in UEW /e/). In Finnish this vowel is realized
[i] or [e], but it may very well coexist with backvowels because of
its neutral history. Therfore kaski is allowed under this more
limited vowel harmony.

Other breaches has taken place as well in Proto-Finnic. One of the
oldest is caused by Indo-European loanwords: -e- in the nucleus
started to allow for an -a or an -o in the second syllable, like in
kerta (<= balt) 'time (occasion), turn, once; layer' or pelto (<=
gmc,) 'field'.

As the vowel harmony erodes, umlaut could in theory become possible
again. And lo and behold, Livonian actually has (unlike Finnish)
developed an umlaut-system.

Jouppe

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:
>
> Jouppe,
>
> thank you: very informative and very interesting.
>
> If Uralicists want to avoid the (Germanic rather than "German")
term Umlaut,
> that is certainly their choice.
>
> Let me put it to you that I believe Umlaut could be termed limited
vowel
> harmony.
>
>
> Patrick