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

"Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@... net> wrote:

At 10:36:25 PM on Wednesday, May 14, 2008, Andrew Jarrette
wrote:

> From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@... net>

>> 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.

> Not true.

You're mistaken. Every statement there is true.

> Former short /a/ in open syllables became lengthened in
> open syllables while former long /a:/ was raised to /O:/.

Open syllable lengthening is obviously irrelevant. Look up
trisyllabic shortening. There was also an early ME
shortening of long vowels before groups of two or more
consonants (including geminates); an example involving OE
/a:/ is ME <aske(n)> from OE <a:scian>.
____________ ____

Why is open syllable lengthening irrelevant?  You said that ME still had length contrasts, but implied that it had lost the /a/:/a:/ contrast.  Well, the /a/:/a:/ contrast was no different from the /O/:/O:/ contrast.  For example, /rO:d&s/ "roads" vs. /rOd(d)&s/ "rods" would have been no different from /sa:k&s/ "sakes, causes" vs. /sak(k)&s/ "sacks" (assuming that <sake> formedx its plural this way; I'm not knowledgeable about ME inflection).  The open and half-open vowels had a long variety and a short variety that contrasted, regardless of origin (i.e whether from original long vowels or original short vowels).

_____

And, to illustrate "whether form original long vowels or original short vowels", cf. ME <hoole> "hole" from OE <hol>, short vowel (lengthened in open syllables when inflected), with ME <hoole> "whole (inflected form)", from OE <ha:l>, long vowel.  It's just that [E:] and [O:] could evolve from either long or short vowels, while <a:> could only arise from short vowels, with perhaps some exceptions.  But <E:> contrasted with <E> and <O:> contrasted with <O> in just the same manner as <a:> contrasted with <a> (e.g. [tal] "dexterous" < OE <getæl>, closed syllable, vs. [ta:l&] "tale" < OE <talu>, open syllable, as compared with [SOt] "shot" < OE <sc(e)ot>, closed syllable, vs. [SO:t&] "shoat" (fish) < OE <sc(e)ota>, open syllable, with the same vowel as [lO:d] "load" < OE <la:d>).
Does this make what I'm saying any clearer?

Andrew