From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 56265
Date: 2008-03-30
----- Original Message -----
From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
>I have some questions about your theory.
>
>Starting with *a *i *o *u
>then assuming for example
>stress lengthening,
>we reach your pre-PIE system
>
>*a *a:
>*i *i:
>*o *o:
>*u *u:
That would be:
*a *a:
*i *i:
*u *u:
>Then you suppose
>*a > PIE *e (ok)
**a, **i, **u > *e, under the stress.
Miguel.
==========
If we start with
PIE stage 1
*a *i *o *u plus stress
Rule 1 : stressed becomes long
PIE stage 2
*a *a: *u *o *o: *i *i: *u *u:
stress irrelevant because
length and stress are the same
Relevant examples :
a: podos ~ pedis
u: nuktos~ noctis
i: ke:rd ~ sir
What is the example for o ~ o: ?
Rule 2 *a: and *o: fused ; *i: > *e:
*a splits into *aH2 and *eH1
PIE stage 3
*a/e *o: *u *i *e: o
(Maybe Tokharian steps out now)
This might be the last really common stage.
Rule 3 *o: and o fused.
PIE stage 4
*a/e *o *u *i *e:
Rule 4 all inherited vowels become short.
This is Western PIE (Celtic + Italic)
Rule 4 does not apply to Anatolic and Central PIE.
I think you mean that. Right ?
Short vowels were unstressed in PIE1 and PIE2
When did the re-stress of short vowels happen ?
I can't figure out what's going on during PIE3 and PIE4 ?
I don't really understand what happens with *i and *u
after PIE 2 ?
ARnaud
===========
Except in morpheme initial and final position:
**-a > *e
**-i > *ye ~ *i
**-u > *we ~ *u
========
I need to first understand *i and *u after PIE2.
Arnaud
======
>*a: > PIE *o(:) (pod/ped ?)
>*i: > PIE *e: (Cf. H2i:kwr.)
>*u: > PIE *o(:) (Example ?)
>nukt / nokt "night" ?
**nú:gt- > *nókWt- under the stress; the oblique e.g. Gen.
**nu:gt-ás, should have given *n.kWtés, and *n.kWt- is
attested in Sanskrit and Germanic, but for the most part we
have analogical *nokWtes or *nekWtes.
The most interesting form is Greek núx, nu:któs.
Cowgill's law states that in Greek PIE *o > u between a
labial and a resonant (Examples from Sihler: *nokWts > núx
"night", *bholjom > phúllon "leaf", *molah2 > múle: "mill",
*h3noghWs > ónux "nail", *nogWnos > gúmnos "naked", *morm- >
múrme:x "ant", *h3noh3mn > ónuma "name", *kWetwores >
písures "4"). The formulation as it stands cannot be
correct, or Sihler would not have included it in his chapter
on Phonology (but rather "Phynology"). I believe that in
most of the examples given, Greek /u/ reflects an original
**u:, kept distinct from **a: > *o.
========
I think I'm ready to agree with that.
Arnaud
==========
>why should *i and *u not be kept
>as *i and *u ?
>Why should they be lost > zero ?
>On account of what ?
>I would just keep *i and *u unchanged.
Tell that to the Slavs.
We are discussing PIE2 and PIE3...
Arnaud
============
In fact, stressed *i and *u are not lost (see above), they
merge with *a (except at the edge of morphemes, and except
for labializing and palatalizing effects on neighbouring
consonants).
Unstressed *i, *u are lost, like unstressed *a.
The only peculiarity is that long *i: and *u: were
apparently also lost in unstressed position, unlike *a:,
which, though shortened, remained and attracted the stress
(Gen. *pa:d-ás > *ped-és > *péd(e)s).
=============
I don't understand that for the time being.
Arnaud
============