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

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

>
>
> ----- 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 ?

I'm not sure. I've seen low vowels have privileged behaviour
elsewhere, but I can't recall anything as striking as this.

> 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 ?

No. Form III was just an example from morphology. I thought I'd seen
an example not related to inflectional morphology, but it's a long
time since I last looked at Wright. In the verbal morphology, you
also get superheavy forms with nun energicum.

> I can see stricken, drunken, known, beaten,
> No example of -/a/- ?

Note relevant, but, since you ask, _spat_.

> this morphological method is unnatural, I'm afraid.

Nor is it employed by anyone.

Richard.