Re: dhuga:ter ('LARYNGEALS')

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <miguelc@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: dhuga:ter ('LARYNGEALS')


> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:43:06 -0500, "Patrick Ryan"
> <proto-language@...> wrote:
>
> >My proposal, however, is that in non-Anatolian PIE, three gutturals
> >(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>?
>
> *senáh2-, of course. The nominative *senáh2s becomes
> *senáks with laryngeal hardening, the acc. *senáh2m becomes
> *sená:m. *senáks regularly gives Lat. senex,

the acc.
> shortened the vowel under the influence of the nominative
> and we regularly have *senam > senem. The opposite occurred
> in the suffix *-trih2-, where we would expect nom. *-triks,
> with a short vowel, acc. *-tri:m. Here, the nom. took over
> the long vowel from the acc., giving Latin -tri:x, acc.
> -tri:cem.
> That the vowel had already been coloured to /a/ by *h2
> before laryngeal hardening (something which Latin cannot
> show) is seen in the other cognates I listed: Slavic -a:k,
> Armenian -ac, -ak`, Greek -ax, -a:x, all with *a or *a:.

***

We have been dancing around the fact that every 'laryngeal' in *s°néH-s
seems to harden, perhaps because PIE would not tolerate adjacent fricatives
so the first one was 'hardened' into the stop /k/. If nominative singular
*z, in which I do not believe, voiced anything, it should have voiced the
*H, or the 'hardened' /k/ to /g/.

There were no *a's (unless already lengthened to *a:) in PIE by the time we
get to adding case-endings.

What, exactly, changed *a to *e "regularly"?

Analogy for the short *a (really *e) of the accusative is unanswerable, and
therefore, used so plentifully. It can be introduced capriciously wherever
needed to explain an anomaly. While it probably played a part in some
phenomena, it is unpredictable as to usage: it probative value is therefore
nu/il(l).

Let us try to handle this before moving on to related phonotaxis.

***

> >But Miguel's problem is not false methodology but rather GIGO: the
> >'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?
>
> I don't understand your theory.
>
> You say *e, *a, *o merged in pre-PIE (eventually yielding
> *e, *o, schwa secundum or zero, depending on the accent),
> except when lengthened by a preceding or following
> laryngeal, in which case they give *e:, *a: and *o: (what
> about the accent?).

***

But you do understand it. That is exactly what I am proposing.

Except I provide a sign for the bundle: *A.

***

> That cannot be true, if only because it would imply that all
> initial vowels would have to be long in PIE, and we would
> have +é:s-mi (*Hés-mi) "I am" instead of *és-mi (*h1és-mi),
> +á:g^o: (*Hág^o-) "I drive" instead of *ág^o: (*h2ág^o-) and
> +ó:d(i)o: (*Hód-(i)o- "I smell" instead of *ód(i)o:
> (*h3ód-(i)o-).
>
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> miguelc@...

***

But that is exactly what I am proposing given a true *CVC (*HVC) root.

It is certainly the implication but then one further rule modifies the
outcome:

where the vowel quality itself distinguishes the root from other similar
roots (*as- from *es-, for example), the lengthened root vowel could be
safely shortened without loss of semantic integrity.

Now I did say 'roots' not stems.

I cannot accept *od(i)- as an example because the *i may be causative
creating the conditions for an *o-grade of a shortened vowel.

See, Arnaud, he always slips a goodie in with the others.

Kidding, of course.



Patrick