Re: [MTLR] RE: The Vocalic Theory (PIE *al-)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Wordingham" <richard.wordingham@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 11:15 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: [MTLR] RE: The Vocalic Theory (PIE *al-)


--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
wrote:

> From: "Richard Wordingham" <richard.wordingham@...>

> >Would you argue the Classical Arabic lacked phonemes /i:/ and /u:/
> >because they do not occur before consonant clusters, thus giving the
> >untidy vowel phoneme set /a/, /a:/, /i/ and /u/?

> I don't understand your objection.
> It seems to me that (classical) Arabic never admits a sequence
> like v + C + C when the vowel is long, be it a: u: or i:
> in other words
> baHr is possible ba:Hr is not.

A semiregular source is Form III of geminate verbs - e.g. _'aajja_ and
_aajaja_ 'he argued'. (I may have the initial consonsnt wrong.)
There also appears to be _`a:dda_ 'he came back'.

Richard.
=========
What is the reason this does not work with passive meanings with i and u as
vowels ?

Using this morphological form III as a guide for phonology
is like using irregular verbs in English like strike stricken
to establish the list of vocalic phonemes
According to you,
only vowels that appear here are phonemes ?
I can see stricken, drunken, known, beaten,
No example of -/a/- ?

this morphological method is unnatural, I'm afraid.

Arnaud
==========