From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 55668
Date: 2008-03-22
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <miguelc@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: dhuga:ter ('LARYNGEALS')
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:54:17 -0500, "Patrick Ryan"
> <proto-language@...> wrote:
>
> >> [mcv]
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> >***
***
I should have been more complete in my answer above.
The lengthening of the vowels to *e:, *a:, and *o: is _independent_ of the
stress-accent.
***
> >> 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-).
> >
> >***
> >
> >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.
>
> A theory that explains the "colouring" near laryngeals as
> preservation of old vowel qualities (not preserved in the
> absence of a laryngeal) is in principle equivalent to
> standard laryngeal theory [well, almost... see below].
>
> Instead of *h1,*h2,*h3 and *e, you have *e,*a,*o and *H. You
> still haven't told me what happens in unstressed position,
> but I suppose you would say *p&2té:r is from *paHtÁr or
> something like that, with a: > &2, e: > &1, o: > &3 in
> unstressed position.
***
Yes, that is part of the story but the rest of it is that my *e:, *a:, and
*o: are the real equivalents *H1, *H2, and *H3 + V.
By the way, is it not suspiciously coincidental that the 'laryngeal' theory
has three coloring agents that just happen to coincide with the three
attested vowels in PIE?
Yes, with unstressed position, I believe the long vowels react very
similarly to what you anticipated with the exception that I have not yet
found it necessary to distinguish schwas
as *&1, *&2, and *&3 according to their origin in *e: (*eH), *a: (*aH), and
*o: (*oH).
With 'father', I would indicate the earliest form as *paHtAr -> *pa:tÁr ->
*p&tér.
***
> The weak point in your theory is that it cannot distinguish
> between VH and HV, something which is trivial in standard
> laryngeal theory.
***
There is no need to since both produce identical effects provided *VH is
syllabically *CVH.
***
> Your explanation:
>
> >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.
>
> This makes no sense to me. The vowel quality, you say, is
> original, so it would *always* distinguish the root from
> other similar roots. You provide no examples of what happens
> when the vowel quality does *not* distinguish the root from
> other similar roots [can there be any in the context of your
> theory?]. It would be simpler to say that in initial
> position, the vowel gets shortened somehow.
***
It has taken me a long time to try to make sense of it myself.
Mainly, because it is very complicated though not really difficult.
*Hes, *Has, and *Hos produce *e:s, *a:s, and *o:s. At first look, one might
say that all could safely be shortened since the vowel quality without
length distinguishes them semantically (*es, *as, *os) but short vowels in
initial root position are the normal outcome of *A dependent on the
stress-accent; so, at least some formerly long vowels that were shortened
seem to have been misinterpreted as outcomes of *A; as you can readily see,
this would be specially easy for *é from *é:.
Another variable is whether one or both of the complementary pairs (V: and
V) have acquired root extensions that effective differentiate them
semantically regardless of the length or even quality of the root-initial
vowel.
As for "shortening somehow", I believe distinctions are maintained as long
as they serve a semantic purpose but when they do not, a kind of entropy
simplifies anything which can be simplified (*aa => *a, e.g.).
***
> So what about final position? In standard laryngeal theory,
> it is easy to distinguish between the 1sg. perfect ending
> *-h2a (> -a) and the feminine Nsg. *-ah2 (> -a:). The fact
> that in the 1sg. perfect an initial consonant was present is
> proven by the failure of Brugmann's law in Skt. 1sg. cakara
> (*kWe-kWor-h2a) vs. 3sg. caka:ra (*kWe-kWor-e). The fact
> that in the suffix *-ah2- there was a final consonant is
> proven by the laryngeal hardening processes we have been
> discussing (*-ah2-s > *-ak-s).
***
In the first place, I operate under the assumption that all formants were
originally words; and as words, must follow PIE root-form constraints. This
means that in two-element formants, only *CV is permissible.
Therefore, the feminine cannot be -*aH2 but must be *-H2a (-*Ha(:) in my
notation).
Just for completeness, I believe this derives from pre-PIE *ha.
The collective, which has the same PIE form, derives from pre-PIE *hha.
I agree that *H(2) was the final consonant of the root when -*s was added.
But I account for it differently.
With a base root of *sAnA, the plain verbal form is *sÁnØ -> *sén-.
With the addition of STATIVE *Ha (from pre-PIE ?a) to *sAna, we get
*sAnAHa -> *sAnÁHa -> *s°néH so *H is in final position to be hardened
by -*s. This nicely explains why the attested form is <senex> vs. <**senax>.
Apparently, *° in the root syllable, manifests itself as *e.
With <sena:tus>, we need only simply assume that the root to *-Ha was added
was *sÁnA -> *sénØ + Ha -> *s°nHá -> *sena:.
Of course, I do not doubt that the perfect ending was consonant-initial:
*Ha.
As for the Law that Brugmann disavowed, we had, as you may recall, a long
discussion of its merits on this or the Nostratic list. It is riddled with
so many qualifications that only 'linguistic correctness' could inspire
someone to call it a law, in my humble opinion.
The only reason I mention this at all is because I believe the 3rd p. sing.
perfect formant is *-He.
***
> Another important difference between laryngeal theory and
> your "vocalic theory", is what happens when we have a
> laryngeal at both sides of the vowel. Again, in laryngeal
> theory there is no problem. For instance, the PIE
> instrumental suffix is *-eh1 > -e: (in your "vocalic
> theory", I suppose that would be *-e(:)H with "original"
> *e).
***
No, as you now know, I would have to reconstruct it as -*He(:).
***
Now when added to the feminine marker *-eh2-/*-o-ih2-,
> the instrumental becomes *-ah2-ah1 > -a: (e.g. Lith -à) and
> *-o-ih2-ah2 > *-oj(j)a: (Slavic -ojoN, with secondary *-m
> [Skt. -aya:]). We see that the colouring effect of *h2 is
> stronger than the neutral effect of *h1. I don't think
> there is a way to explain this using vowel qualities in lieu
> of laryngeal qualities.
***
There may not be a way to explain it but I will make an attempt.
H2a+H1e (your notation, my form), in my notation: *Ha(:)+He(:).
If the stress-accent was on the feminine ending: *Há(:)&.
If not *Ha(:)&.
If one allow a loss of *& after a long vowel, we arrive at the desired -*a:.
For Skt. -aya:, we need only suppose a final syllable stress-accent:
*&He(:) -> -ia:.
I will leave it to you to comment on whether Skt. -ia: could become -*aya:.
As for Balto-Slavic, I am completely ignorant of the turn and twists of it.
If you feel the Balto-Slavic data is incommensurable with my proposed
reconstrcutions, you will have to lead me through it like a child.
***
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> miguelc@...
***
I want to thank you for taking the time and energy to seriously look at my
proposal.
Patrick
***