"syllabicity"

[Patrick C. Ryan]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

Dear Jens and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen <jer at cphling.dk>
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 1999 6:36 PM

> On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, Patrick C. Ryan wrote:

> [...]

>> Rich continues:

>>> Thus, Lehmann violates a major principle when he asserts that any stage of
>>> Indo-European lacked a phonemic vowel:  If a phone is present in a
>>> language, it has a psychological status in the lexicon, and while it may
>>> alternate with other sounds in the language because of morphological rules
>>> or unconstrained processes, it cannot be denied phonemic status.

Unless it contrasts with another vowel, which produces a *semantic*
difference, I believe it is correct to say that the phone is not phonemic.

> I think he violates an even more fundamental rule: If a segment is opposed
> to zero, it exists!

Differo, ergo sum.

But, Lehmann would accord segmenticity to syllabicity, I am relatively
certain.

> Thus, since even an extremist monovocalic IE phonology would oppose a 3sg in
> *-t to a 2pl in *-te, it must have a phoneme /e/.  This of course does not
> detract from the stimulating effect of the book - just look at us!

With the best attempt to see this, I confess I cannot.  The difference
between *-t and -*te is simply explained by paying attention to the
stress-accentuation: *"-t(i) and *-"te.

IMHO, the morpheme for the second and third persons, containing <t>, has a
unitary origin: *T{H}O, 'tribe-member'.

<snip>

> Thus, in Sanskrit, short /a/ is the only true vowel demanded to allow
> an unambiguous notation of all (normal) words. This is a one-vowel system
> of the kind dismissed as a typological impossibility for PIE. - I rush to
> add that the acceptability of this analysis for Sanskrit does not make it
> correct for PIE which, for completely independent reasons, appears to need
> at least the vowels /a, e, o/ on the phonemic level - and even long /a:,
> e:, o:/ and underlying /i, u/ (opposed to /y, w/!) on an abstract
> morphophonemic level.

> In Sanskrit, as in PIE, the rules stipulating a given sonant/semivowel to
> appear syllabic or nonsyllabic are relatively clear. Such an element is
> nonsyllabic when contiguous with a vowel, otherwise it is syllabic. Only
> Sievers and a touch of analogy compromise predictability.

Well, whatever else we may agree or disagree on, I am truly gratified that
we can see eye to eye on this. I tried to make this point with Allan Bomhard
for seven years (approx.), and could never succeed in getting him to see
it --- nor its implications for Nostratic.

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)