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

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:54:11 +0100, "fournet.arnaud"
<fournet.arnaud@...> wrote:

>
>The evidence clearly shows that in Hittite _all_ stressed
>/e/'s were long, whether etymologically short or long. As I
>already mentioned, the evidence from the other Anatolian
>languages (e.g. Lydian <bira>) shows that in the case of
><pé:r>, the length _is_ etymological.
>
>=======================
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
>
>=========
>Let's admit *pe:r and *ke:r existed.
>
>Why should it not be a synchronic
>(anatolian) lenghthening of
>*pern > *per:

of *perr, rather.

>*kerd > *ke:r
>Because Anatolian does not accept clusters
>and "prefers" long vowels.

It has nothing to do with Anatolian. We have Greek ké:r,
Armenian sirt < *k^e:rd, Vedic ha:rdi, OPrussian seyr, all
showing a long vowel.

>What is the documentation for
>the other cases where you have *e: ?

The attested Indo-European languages.

There are of course many cases where an attested /e:/ goes
back to *eh1, but there are plenty of cases where the
presence of a laryngeal can be excluded, either because the
word has mobile accent in Balto-Slavic (e.g. *g^hwé:r- >
Latv. zvêrs, OCS zvê^rI), or because a syllabic laryngeal
fails to show up in the corresponding zero-grade form, or
because we have *E: in Anatolian instead of *æ:, etc.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
miguelc@...