"syllabicity"

[CONNOLLY at LATTE.MEMPHIS.EDU]

[Most of my long treatise on Lehmann 1955 omitted]

>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.

rma added:

>[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 ]

I opened Lehmann and immediately put my finger on syllabicity in the last
chapter.  Embarrassing!  But I know why I didn't recall it: that chapter (a)
had no relevance to my actual interest, viz. Germanic reflexes of laryngeals,
and (b) it struck me as utterly nonsensical.  My gut feeling aside, there's an
obvious problem with it even in terms of structuralist theory.  On p. 112
Lehmann states: "If we find no phonemes in complemetary distribution at the
peak of the syllable, we cannot assume a segmental phoneme for this position."
Surely not "phonemes in complementary distribution" -- *contrasting* phonemes,
or something of the sort.  Whether complementary or contrastive, the supposed
difficulty arises because Lehmann (against Brugmann & Co.) arbitrarily defines
[i u] as syllabic allophones of resonant phonemes /y w/ -- Brugmann's notation,
where [y w] are written <i u> with subscript half-moons, implicitly makes the
vocalic /i u/ fundamental, whereas for /m n l r/ the non-syllabic realizations
are (hence subscript circle beneath the syllabic realizations).  With /i u/
there is contrast in position between non-syllabics, and Lehmann's
justification for a prosodic feature of "syllabicity" vanishes. -- I should add
that on p. 113, Lehmann incautiously says that at the next stage of PIE, with
phonemic stress, syllabicity with minimum stress "remains non-segmental between
obstruents..."  "Between"?  How so?  Anything that can be between phonemes
sounds segmental enough to me!

Leo

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