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

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:35:22 +0100, "fournet.arnaud"
<fournet.arnaud@...> wrote:

>>=========
>>Let's admit *pe:r and *ke:r existed.
>>
>>Why should it not be a synchronic
>>(anatolian) lenghthening of
>>*pern > *per:
>
>of *perr, rather.
>============
>I mistyped :
>I meant pe:r
>as the synchronic result of *pern

There can be no *pern: pre-PIE *-n > *-r (except after /m/,
as in the *-mn.-neuters).

>>*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.
>Miguel
>================
>
>You are changing the topic.
>It's no use giving the Central PIE examples
>They do not prove anything.

Nonsense: they prove everything. If a form is attested in
Anatolian, Greek, Indo-Iranian, Balto-Slavic, Armenian and
indirectly Germanic (PGmc. *hert-on- cannot be from the
oblique stem *k^r.d-, as Lat. cord-, so it must reflect
full-grade *k^e:rd-, with Osthoff shortening), then it's
assuredly PIE.

>I'm not convinced that the existence of inherited e:
>is proved in Anatolian languages.
>
>Now, what you have provided are examples :
>1. with Logograms
>SHA-er and E-er to be read *ke:r and *pe:r
>This is more an interpretation than a reading.
>2. supposing *ke:r and *pe:r exist
>they can be explained synchronically
>as *pe:r < *pern and ke:r < *kern
>Next, I think it's highly strange
>that /e/ exists only when it's long.
>in Hittite.
>This is a strange feature.
>and probably a mis-reading.

Merely a misunderstanding on your part. Synchronically,
Hittite stressed /e/ is always long [e:], unstressed /e/ is
always short [e]. Nothing strange about that.

>>What is the documentation for
>>the other cases where you have *e: ?
>
>My question is about Anatolian data ?
>MAybe you have a clear example
>without logogram and without final clusters.

See Melchert's Anatolian Historical Phonology. The most
important evidence for PA *e: is of course that it shows
distinct reflexes in Luwian, Lycian and Lydian as opposed to
*eh1. Some of the evidence given by Melchert:

(With *e: > i:)
*ne: 'not' => Luw. ni:, Lyc. ni, Lyd. ni-d
*He:rut- 'curse' => Luw. hi:rut-
*ke:s-ah2-ye- 'to comb' => Luw. ki:s^a(i)-
*e:lH-ah2-ye- 'to wash' => Luw. e:lha(i)-
*e:ptro- > Luw. i:ppatarri(ya) 'distrain'
*HVpe:riye- 'to sell' > Lyc. epirije-
*pe:r 'house' > Lyd. bira
*se:rmó- 'of the precinct' > Lyd. sirma

(With *eh1 > a:)
*h1yeh1- 'to do, make' > Luw. a:-, Lyc. a-
*seh1- 'to let go' > Luw. sa:-, Lyc. ha-
*dheh1- 'to put' > Lyc. ta-, Lyd. ta-
etc.

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