Re: PIE initial *a

----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 5:32 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: PIE initial *a


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
> >
> >> =====
> >>
> >> *a is conspicuous rare and does not enter in any morphological
> >> alternation.
> >>
> >> This is the major fact in favor of the standard theory.
> >>
> >> Arnaud
> >> ==============
> >
> > ***
> > Patrick:
> >
> >
> > *a does not figure in any morphological alternation (Ablaut/apophony)
> > because it was not a possible outcome of *A(blautvokal), which had only
> > *e, *o, *°, and *Ø as possibilities.
> ==========
>
> You previously alleged examples of *a
> reflected as <a>.
> Now *a is the same as *e and *o !!
>
> You are so incredibly incoherent
> from one day to the next.
>
> Arnaud
> =========


Patrick:

Mauvais comme d'habitude, Arnaud.

I "allege" nothing!!!

I am citing Pokorny's reconstructions. Take it up with his spirit.

I have never said or written that "*a is the same as *e and *o".

I have explained, over and over, that pre-PIE had four pure vowels:

*e:, *a:, *o:, *A

PIE *a, as I also have explained at least a dozen times, results from a
shortening of *a: due to the Law of Phonological Entropy; and that pre-PIE
unlengthened *a was _not_ preserved.

You will never subscribe to my Theory but at least, try to understand it,
will you?


***

***