"syllabicity"

CONNOLLY at LATTE.MEMPHIS.EDU CONNOLLY at LATTE.MEMPHIS.EDU
Thu Apr 15 16:09:25 UTC 1999


Ed wrote:

>Hi.  I just read Winifred Lehmann's _Theoretical Bases of Proto-Indo-European
>Linguistics_ (I believe that's the name; don't have my copy next to me).

>He refers to the theory set forth in his earlier _Proto-Indo-European
>Phonology_ that there were no phonemic vowels in early PIE, that on the
>contrary there was a non-segmental phonemic quality which he calls
>"syllabicity" which would result in the phonetic manifestation of vowels in
>certain positions.

rma added:

>[ Moderator's comment:
>  Lehmann's analysis is a monument to the structuralism of the 1940s.  In any
>  reasonable phonological theory, this analysis could not be made.  (If looked
>  at from the viewpoint of Stampe's natural phonology, Lehmann's "syllabicity"
>  is simply the vowel /a/, with allophonic variation becoming phonemicized
>  over time.)  For another example of the same kind of analysis, one which has
>  been examined in the literature, see Aert Kuipers' monograph on Kabardian
>  from the 1960s.  I forget the exact title, but it was published in the
>  _Janua Linguarum, Series Minor_ by Mouton; it should be available in a
>  university library.
>  --rma ]

Lehmann's book is a monument not only to structuralism, but also to
Neo-Grammarian notions of the 19th centuries -- both of these as the basis for
use of the laryngeal theory (in this instance, four additional PIE consonants
not recognized by the Neogrammarians) to explain some odd developments in the
Germanic languages.  Not surprisingly, the book is a mess.  The Neogrammarians
had realized that the vowels [i u] tend to alternate with [y w] under
conditions which no one has ever been able to specify *exactly*; since this was
apparently his dissertation, he felt obligated to say this within the framework
dominant at the time: PIE [i u] were allophones of /y w/, not "true" vowels,
just as PIE syllabic [M N L R] were allophones of /m n l r/.  Furthermore,
though the laryngeals were unambiguously consonants in PIE (his view and mine,
though others differ), the attested IE languages often have vowels where there
were once laryngeals.  The Neogrammarians had posited PIE Schwa in just such
places.

While rejecting Neo-grammarian Schwa, Lehmann adopted Hermann Hirt's theory of
PIE ablaut, which entailed a weak vowel ("schwa secundum") in addition to the
more commonly accepted ablaut grades.  He writes subscript e for this.  Within
HIrt's framework, Schwa secundum represented those cases in which full-grade
PIE /e/ or /o/ did not vanish in an unstressed syllable, but rather remained as
Schwa secundum -- in other words, a syllable was weakened but not lost.
(Like the Neogrammarians, Lehmann saw PIE /e o e: o:/ as real vowels, always
syllabic but subject to weakening or loss.  He differed in claiming that [a a:]
were allophones of /e e:/ next to a-coloring laryngeals, and in analyzing most
apparent long vowels as sequences of short vowel + laryngeal.)

Lehmann then claimed that the traditional PIE Schwa was actually a sequence of
Schwa secundum + laryngeal: the weak vowel was affected enough by the laryngeal
that it was phonetically different than in non-laryngeal environments.

I have read Lehmann's book numerous times (though not recently) and have
learned much from it (as well as recognizing numerous errors and
contradictions).  But I simply do not remember his ever making any use of
"syllabicity" beyond the obvious ones: /m n l r y w/ had syllabic realizations
between non-syllabic segments, and the "vocalization (as many call it) of the
laryngeals was due to a preceding weak vowel, Schwa secundum.  Nothing
mysterious when all is said and done; the only question is whether one can
accept any given part of this whole poorly-integrated theory.  (Personally, I
accept Schwa secundum, but virtually no one else does these days.)

Leo

Leo A. Connolly                         Foreign Languages & Literatures
connolly at latte.memphis.edu              University of Memphis

[ Moderator's comment:
  The "syllabicity" in question is in the final chapter of the book, in the
  discussion of the stages of pre-IE vocalism leading up to the vowel system
  seen in PIE, by which I mean that reconstructible from the daughter languages
  in Neogrammarian fashion.  The earliest stage which he posits is one in which
  there is *no* phonemic vowel at all.  I was charmed by the notion for years
  as an undergraduate, but then I learned more phonology.
  --rma ]



More information about the Indo-european mailing list