From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Message: 55570
Date: 2008-03-20
>My proposal, however, is that in non-Anatolian PIE, three gutturals*senáh2-, of course. The nominative *senáh2s becomes
>(laryngals and pharyngals: <?, h, H>) had fallen, _including_ <?> together;
>and that the _sole_ effect this phoneme had on adjacent vowels was to
>lengthen them. No coloring whatsoever! The differing long vowels qualities
>are attributable to the earlier vowel qualities (*e, *a, *o) being
>_preserved_ by being lengthened to *e:, *a:, and *o:.
>
>Pre-PIE <¿> became PIE *y.
>
>All earlier short vowels (*e, *a, *o) became *A(blautvokal), which had the
>following manifestations in PIE: *é, **è (formerly accented *é) -> *ò; and,
>at a slightly later stage, *° (nod to Meillet), and *Ø, dependent on the
>stress-accent and its placement and subsequent syllable position shifts
>within the word.
>
>Lest you all dismiss this out of hand, I discussed by telephone, email, and
>correspondence this idea with the late Winfred Lehmann, who sincerely
>encouraged me to develop it further. I am certain he was not humoring me
>because our friendly relationship had a 25-year span.
>
>A brilliant man! When comes such another?
>
>Now I would like to investigate <senex> a little further with a eye to
>critiquing current 'laryngeal' theory.
>
>Without attempting to specify the earlier pre-PIE vowel qualities, let us
>start with *sAnA, which I believe was a transitional form along the way to
>*sen-, 'complete (Pokorny: "vollenden")'. It is a *CVC root.
>
>PIE accentuation provided for an acute stress-accent of the root syllable;
>and in a bisyllable, *Ø for the final vowel: *sÁnØ, or *sÁn-.
>
>But another PIE accentuation rule calls for shifting the stress-accent to
>the right with the addition of a formant.
>
>In this case, the natural suspect is what I would call simply *H but
>'l-theorists' would call *H1.
>
>But Miguel reconstructs *senaH2-.
>
>While I believe that the stative actually had the pre-PIE form *Ha and so
>might correspond to *H2 on some level, the *a can be maintained in PIE only
>if it is lengthened.
>
>This brings up the question of chronological timing. If *HA were added to
>*sÁnA before the rule eliminating the final vowel was introduced, we would
>transitionally expect *sAnÁHA; if after, *sÁnHA, the form we seem to find in
>Hittite <shnh->, 'look through'.
>
>By the 'l-theory', Miguel rightly projected *senáH2- for the result of the
>first form. By my method, we would expect *s°néH- -> *sene:-.
>
>Which is more likely to fund the actual forms seen in <senex>?
>But Miguel's problem is not false methodology but rather GIGO: theI don't understand your theory.
>'l-theory'.
>
>My method can account for the stem *sena:-, the source of *H2 for Miguel,
>but simply assuming that this stem was formed _after_ the deletion of finals
>vowel: pre-PIE *sVnHá- -> early PIE *sAnHa(:)- and PIE *sena:- (as in
><sena:tus>).
>
>I think this is a more elegant solution to the actual data attested.
>
>What do you think, Miguel and others?