From: Richard Wordingham
Message: 56357
Date: 2008-03-31
> From: "Richard Wordingham" <richard@...><unsnip, reformat and repair>
>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" wrote:
>> > From: "Richard Wordingham" <richard@>
> <snip>
>>> I cannot speak to Dutch umlaut resistance except to say in a</unsnip>
>>> general way that some groups of speakers seem willing to allowing
>>> following vowel quality to be anticipated in the primary vowel,
>>> and some do not. To me, it is a physical thing else all languages
>>> would have a brand of vowel harmony - which they do not.
>> Note that they all allowed short vowels to be umlauted.Groups of speakers [of (pre-)Dutch]
> Who is 'they all'? There is no obvious antecedent.
> Are you saying that Dutch allows short vowels but not long vowelsYes. Miguel also pointed out that some dialects of Dutch also allow
> to undergo umlaut?
>> There is one example where laryngeal colouring fully affected short<Examples snipped - it's in
>> vowels but only partially long vowels - lamedh guttural stems in
>> Classical Hebrew.
> I do not know enough about Hebrew to really grasp your point.I simplify and explain below.
>> Long vowels are 'broken' rather than coloured, but generally suchNow here's a thought. Perhaps breaking once occurred before gutturals
>> breaking can be 'smoothed' away [e.g. Anglian smoothing in
>> Old English - JRW]. Had this happened in Hebrew, we
>> would have had laryngeal colouring of short vowels but no effect on
>> long vowels. As it is, we get the breaking effectively known as
>> furtive pathah rather than full colouring.
>> Is it possible to have a phonemic analysis where furtive pathah isRichard.
>> purely an allophonic effect? If so, we could claim an even better
>> analogy to PIE.