On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:02:43 -0000, "jouppe"
<
jouppe@...> wrote:
>Could this system do away with ü and ï then??
As I said, I don't know the full details. What Abondolo
says in "The Uralic Languages" (Routledge), is just that his
and Tálos' idea is that, in first syllables, PU had two
vowel heights and two lengths:
High: i ï ii ïï
u ü uu üü
Low : a ä aa ää
(Apparently, in Uralic things come in twos ;-)
UEW *o is */aa/ in a-stems, */u/ in i-stems
UEW *e is */ää/ in a-stems, */i/ in i-stems
UEW *i, *ï, *u and *ü are */ii/, */ïï/, */uu/ and */üü/.
I'm not sure where that leaves */a/ ~ */aa/, */ä/ ~ */ää/ in
i-stems, or short *i/*ï and *u/*ü in a-stems.
My preliminary reconstruction of the theory:
Tálos & Abondolo
UEW A-stems I-stems
*a *a *a(a)?
*ä *ä *ä(ä)?
*e *ää *i (*ï)?
*o *aa *u (*ü)?
*i *i(i)? *ii
*ï *ï(ï)? *ïï
*u *u(u)? *uu
*ü *ü(ü)? *üü
A brief look at Sammallahti's word-lists in Sinor's "The
Uralic Languages" (Brill) gives me the impression that the
Mari vowel lengths are not a bad fit for Tálos and
Abondolo's system, but I don't feel qualified to offer a
definite opinion.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
miguelc@...