Re: 'Vocalic Theory'

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Wordingham" <richard@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] RE: 'Vocalic Theory'


--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:
> Richard Wordingham wrote:
>> Patrick Ryan wrote:

>> > Are you saying that Dutch allows short vowels but not long vowels
>> > to undergo umlaut?

>> Yes. Miguel also pointed out that some dialects of Dutch also allow
>> long vowels to undergo umlaut.

> Well, that takes most of the wind out of the sails, does it not?

Out of yours, I think. You can no longer claim that because emphatics
colour whole vowels in Arabic, PIE laryngeals should also colour whole
vowels.

Richard.

***

I think not.

They are two similar processes with two entirely different mechanisms.

And I am surprised that I have to tell you this, Richard.

To undergo Umlaut or not to undergo Umlaut is a question of whether a
language anticipates following vowel qualities by quality changes in the
immediate vowel.

That Dutch allows Umlaut with short vowels but no long vowels is interesting
but has no bearing on our question.

Emphatic coloration, as does actually exist in languages like Arabic, is a
vowel quality change brought about by an adjacently _preceding_ (not
_following_ as above) oral configuration. A corollary is that the agent and
the patient are always in the same syllable which is never the cause with
Umlaut.

So, it is perfectly natural that any quality change effected by an emphatic
would affect but short vowels and long vowels in the same syllable.


Patrick

***