Re: Re[8]: [tied] Re: PIE initial *a

At 8:13:35 PM on Thursday, May 15, 2008, Andrew Jarrette
wrote:

> Could you entertain the possibility that *a was lengthened
> before OE *a: was raised to /O:/? My idea is that the
> former was /a:/ while the latter was /A:/, subsequently
> /O:/. I don't think the evidence contradicts this
> possibility.

I've no quarrel with the idea that OE had /A:/; it makes the
development to ME /O:/ relatively natural. The Peterborough
Chronicle (1134) already shows some instances of /A:/ >
/O:/, and my limited exposure to the evidence is consistent
with the more informed estimate that the change was more or
less complete around 1200. I'm much less familiar with the
evidence for OSL, but I don't know of any reason to doubt
the estimate that it commenced around 1200. At this point
I've no real reason to consider the alternative that you
suggest.

______

Yeah, upon further consideration I had to agree with you.  The position I held above I feel is untenable and unlikely.  But it may be that before OSL, very early Middle English had a short /a/ phoneme and a long /A:/  (or /A.:/)  phoneme, the latter very quickly becoming /O:/ while the former remained for a time at /a/ before later evolving into /a/ and /a:/ -- no?  Then again, OE /A:/ may have become /O:/ and /æ:/ may have become /E:/ while OE /A/ and /æ/ were still distinguished, before later merging into /a/ -- i.e. the raising of /A:/ and /æ:/ may have been quite early.  I've tried researching the topic on the web but could not find anything.

Andrew