"syllabicity"

[Patrick C. Ryan]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

Dear Leo and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: <CONNOLLY at LATTE.MEMPHIS.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 1999 11:09 AM

<snip>

> 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.

It is profoundly irresponsible to label anything written by Lehmann as a
"mess".  He is one of the preeminent IEists of the 20th century, and to
cavalierly dismiss his work as "Neogrammarian", as if a label could discount
his achievements and contributions, is tragically unjustified.

> 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*;

This is, in my opinion, totally misleading. The condition has been exactly
specified, and in such simple terms, that hardly anyone, who does not have a
predisposition to think that the latest fads in linguistics are the last
word,  could not understand them: initial ['Y/WVC] is ['y/wVC]; initial
[Y/WV'C] is [i/u'C]; ['CVY/WC] is ['CVi/uC];  [CV'Y/WVC] is ['Cy/wVC];
[CVY/W'C] is [Ci/u'C]. Now, what was so difficult about that?

> 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,

I do not know if Beekes had such an argument in *his* dissertation but in a
book published as late as 1995, he is still asserting what Lehmann's
dissertation asserted. So, though you may disagree, many eminent IEists
still maintain that IE [y/w] are primarily consonontal. And, as any
Nostraticist can assure you, IE [y/w] reflects Semitic [y/w]. If Nostratic
[i/u] -- presuming they actually existed -- showed up as Semitic [0], you
might have a talking point but they do not.

> just as PIE syllabic [M N L R] were allophones of /m n l r/.

The syllabic status of [M/N/L/R] is a totally unrelated matter. These become
syllabic when deprived of the stress-accent.

> 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.

I do not dispute that 'laryngeals' were consonantal in Nostratic but by
Indo-European, I believe their consonantal had been lost except for Hittite.

> 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.)

I differ with Lehmann here. I believe that IE [a:] is a retention of the
vowel quality of the vowel which *followed* the 'laryngeal', having been
lengthened at its disappearance by compensatory lengthening. So I would
say - laryngeal + short vowel, with the *preceding* short vowel having been
lost.

> 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.)

> [ 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 ]

Rich, I would be interested to know what phonological principles you believe
Lehmann's "syllabism" violates?

Pat

PATRICK C. RYAN (501) 227-9947; FAX/DATA (501)312-9947 9115 W. 34th St.
Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803 and PROTO-RELIGION:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/indexR.html "Veit
ek, at ek hekk, vindga meipi, nftr allar nmu, geiri undapr . . . a ~eim
meipi er mangi veit hvers hann af rstum renn." (Havamal 138)