Re: Re[4]: [tied] Re: PIE initial *a

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
To: "fournet.arnaud" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 9:51 PM
Subject: Re[4]: [tied] Re: PIE initial *a


> At 2:37:16 PM on Wednesday, May 14, 2008, fournet.arnaud
> wrote:
>
>> From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
>
>>> It may not make sense, but it can happen: OE <ha:ligdo:m>
>>> became ME <halido:m> as part of a regular set of changes in
>>> trisyllabic words. In fact, non-northern varieties of ME
>>> eliminated /a:/ altogether, partly by shortening and partly
>>> by a change /a:/ > /O:/, but it still had length contrasts.
>
>> What is this word halido:m ?
>
> <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/halidom>
>
>> The change /a:/ > /O:/ is not at all the same as /a:/ >
>> /a/
>
> Of course not. I didn't say that it was. I said that the
> total loss of /a:/ was the combined result of two different
> changes, both regular.
>
>> What you are describing is not a general change /a:/ >
>> /a/.
>
> It's not an unconditional change, but it *is* a general
> change /a:/ > /a/ in certain environments. But this is
> irrelevant, because Patrick's supposed law of phonological
> entropy operates at the level of individual roots and isn't,
> properly speaking, phonological at all. In particular, it
> doesn't require a general change /a:/ > /a/; it merely says
> that this change may occur in a particular root if the
> resulting root does not already exist as a distinct root.
>
> Moreover, you appear to have recognized this when you wrote:
>
>> The idea that a long a: could become short while there
>> still are long vowels in the system does not make sense.
>
> Taken at face value, this is not a claim that /a:/ > /a/ is
> impossible when there are still long vowels in the system;
> it is a claim that no instance of /a:/ > /a/ whatsoever
> should occur when there are still long vowels in the system.
> Since it is the second (and in English normal)
> interpretation that is actually relevant to Patrick's 'law',
> that is the one that I used. If you actually meant the
> first interpretation, your statement may perhaps be correct
> -- I've not given it much thought -- but it has nothing to
> do with Patrick's 'law'.
>
>
> Please note that I am not in the least defending Patrick's
> 'law of phonological entropy', which is little more than a
> license to to make arbitrary adjustments to adjust the
> theoretically predicted forms to fit the actual data.
>
> Brian
>
============

Thank you for these explanations.

What about the word father ?
Is the <a> not long in all varieties of Modern English ?
Sounds to me as being neither pot nor cat.

Arnaud.

========