"syllabicity"

[Patrick C. Ryan]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

Dear Leo and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: <CONNOLLY at LATTE.MEMPHIS.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, April 18, 1999 1:07 AM

[ moderator snip ]

> 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.

Why do you not explain why you consider it "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."

My own gut feeling is that there is no problem whatsoever.

I will quote what Lehmann says before this quotation:

"We can construct one more stage of pre-IE, a pre-stress period. If stress
gave rise to conditioned variants [e e{sub} e:], an an earlier periodsuch
stress must have been non-distinctive.

In accordance with its most common reflex the most open segment of the
pre-IE syllable, the syllabic peak, is usually written e, as in Benveniste's
reconstruction of the IE root. The syllabic peak does not, however, contrast
*directly* with any vowel. Consequently an analysis of the pre-stress stage
of pre-IE with a vowel phoneme e is misleading. If we find no phonemes in
complementary distribution at the peak of a syllable, we cannot assume a
segmental phoneme for this position. The peak of the syllable, syllabicity,
must have been a prosodic feature."

All Lehmann is saying is that since no specific vowel can be specified at
the syllabic peak, one that becomes phonemic by contrast with other phonemic
vowels (where "phonemic" is defined as providing a semantic differentiation:
CVC is a different word than CV{1}C), we cannot assume *one* specific vowel
(e or anything else) at the syllabic peak in stressed positions.
"Syllabicity" is just a innovative way of describing V{?}.

> Surely not "phonemes in complementary distribution" -- *contrasting*
> phonemes, or something of the sort.

"Complementary distribution" in Trask's dictionary means "The relation which
holds in a given speech variety between two phones which never occur in the
same environment."

With the exception of the qualification "two", this describes the situation
that Lehmann has supposed for the stress-period of IE (e  e{sub}  e:). You
may question his analysis but his terminology seems perfectly in accordance
with standard usage.

> 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/ --

There is nothing arbitrary about this at all. If we assume that IE and AA
are related through Nostratic (which you may not prefer to do), the decision
is mandatory. IE CiC does not show up in AA as normal C-C but rather always
as C-y-C.

> Brugmann's notation, where [y w] are written <i u> with subscript half-moons,
> implicitly makes the vocalic /i u/ fundamental,

That is reading a lot into a simple notational device. And what if Brugmann
didbelieve this. IE studies have moved along a little bit in the last
hundred years. Whatever Brugmann's assumptions may or may not have been, not
inconsiderable IEists like Beekes consider <i u> as vocalic realizations of
consonantal <y w>. If you wish to dispute that, the question is currently
being discussed on the Nostratic list.

So far, the only information there we have to support your position is
Bomhard's *mention* of a paper by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov *with no details*.
Do you have any arguments for your position?

> whereas for /m n l r/ the non-syllabic realizations are (hence subscript
> circle beneath the syllabic realizations).

A subscript circle does not work very well under a <y>.

> With /i u/ there is contrast in position between non-syllabics,

I have no idea what this means. Could you explain it?

> 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!

How about zero-grade "vowels"? Perhaps you would prefer another way to
describe it but Lehmann's meaning is rather clear to me.

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)