"syllabicity"

[Patrick C. Ryan]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

Dear Leo and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: <CONNOLLY at LATTE.MEMPHIS.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 1999 12:30 PM

<snip>

Leo writes:

> With Lehmann, I agree that [e e{sub}] were originally allophones of a single
> phoneme, however that phoneme must be analyzed.  But the stress system of
> (pre)-PIE changed, and that changed things greatly.  At one point, [e{sub}]
> was a predictable variant of [e] under weak stress.  But later, the
> occurrence of [e] and [e{sub}] was no longer predictable.  More than meaning,
> it is the *unpredictability* of one form or another that requires them to be
> analyzed as separate phonemes.

Pat responds:

I think a useful distinction to be made is whether we *can* predict the
occurences --- limited by our imperfect understanding of the
stress-accentual fluctuations  ---  and --- if we had a better understanding
of them, whether we could predict them.

Leo continues:

> Once speakers could no longer know from the stress pattern of a word which to
> say, it was one more fact to be remembered about the word -- which in systems
> which understand phonemes as *psychological* entities, (essentially, all
> post-structuralist systems), is sufficient.

Pat responds:

Whether we can "know" and whether the speakers then could have known is,
again, to me, two separate questions.


Leo continues:

> -- Needless to say, the contrast was not instantly exploited for semantic
> purposes, at least in the sense that new roots were introduced which differed
> from already existing roots precisely because one had [e], one [e{sub}].  But
> quantitative ablaut came to play a very large role in the verb system, as
> well as in the declension of certain nominal types.  Germanic strong verbs
> (called "irregular" in English) exploit ablaut to this day.  The reflexes of
> the difference do not differentiate roots, but they still differentiate verb
> tenses.  That would be impossible if they weren't separate phonemes!

Pat responds:

This is one of those questions in which it is hard to decide if the dog is
chasing his tail or the tail is teasing the dog.

On a non-IE scenario, a phoneme can easily be identified as marking a
semantic difference: English cat / cot.

In IE, we simply do not find that CeC is a semantically different morpheme
from CoC. Now, as you have rightly identified, these variations *do* mark
grammatical distinctions. You obviously prefer to define forms indicating
different grammatical employments as semantically different; I do not
because, if we did, we would be forced to say that cat / cats  are
*semantically* different. I do not think you would be willing to go this
far, would you?

 <snip>

Pat comments:

>> As for [e:], I do not believe it is an allophone but rather the product of
>> *He/e{sub}.

Leo answers:

> This just plain won't work.  Consider the word for 'father' in Greek and
> Sanstrit:
> Greek Sanskrit
> Nominative pate:'r pita:
> Genitive patro's pituh.
> Dative patri' pitre:
> Accusative pate'ra pitaram
> Vocative pa'ter pitah.

Pat argues:

I have no reason to think that the analysis of this word is other than as a
compound of the root plus the suffix of the nomina agentis -ter (not
**te:r).

Leo continues:

> Surely the long vowel of the nominative  cannot derive from /He/: if so,
> at least the accusative and vocative should have shown the same development.

Pat interjects:

Correct, I do not believe that the e: of this word derives from /He/; I also
do not believe it is original. In view of *ma:te{'}r, and in view of the
fact that we have no IE root of the form *p6-, considering that *p6te:{'}r
is obviously an analogous formation, I believe the likeliest scenario for
the long vowel is a metathesis of laryngeal (or, just simply, the feature
length): *pV:(H)-ter -> *p(6)-te:r.  On the basis, the /e:/ is simply an
allophone of /e/, hence, cannot be phonemic. If the long vowel of the
nominative were original rather than a result of easily understood
phonlogical developments, it *would* show up as more than -0- in, e.g. the
genitive.

Leo continues:

> The [e:] of which Lehmann speaks is traditional PIE lengthened grade.  It
> occurs in specific morphological forms, in part old, in part through later
> extension (verb tenses in many languages).  It has nothing to do with
> laryngeals; although I grant that sequences VH yield V: in many forms in many
> IE languages.  (HV normally yields a short vowel, not a long one, except in
> Sanskrit, which has an abnormal number of long vowel reflexes.  "Laryngeal
> metathesis" seems likely for Sanskrit, but (peace, brethren and sisteren!)
> not elsewhere.

Pat responds:

An /e:/ which is the result of phonological processes or morphology still
cannot be considered a phoneme IMHO. For me to accept the phonemic status of
[e:], I would need to see two roots: Ce/oC and Ce:/o:C, with different
meanings. And yes, I meant to write e:/o:. If e: is phonemic, we should
expect to see it participating in Ablaut.

 <snip>

Leo re-opens a subject:

> I didn't object to Lehmann's calling /^/ a phoneme.  Like any good
> structuralist or post-structuralist, I accept the idea that some phonemes
> are non-segmental.  My objection is only to his claim that /^/ was, for some
> reason, non-segmental.  Only his notion that there were originally no
> other vowel phonemes could possibly support such a claim, and even then it's
> unacceptable for all sorts of other reasons.

Pat responds:

I understand your concerns; and you have convinced me that Lehmann should
have expressed this differently.

Leo picks up on:

<snip>

> Pat suggested:

>> As for the 3rd sg. perfect active, -e is understandable on the same
>> principle if we consider the earlier form to have been -e: (from *-He),
>> reduced to -e in a stress-unaccented syllable.

Leo responds:

> I know of no evidence for a laryngeal there -- and one piece of evidence
> against.  Skt. _cakara_ 'I have done' reflects PIE _*kwe-kwor-Ae_, where A is
> an a-coloring laryngeal.  The short -a- of the root, where -a:- would be
> expected by Brugmann's Law, is often taken as evidence for a laryngeal in the
> desinence: Brugmann's Law operated only on -o- in open syllables.  But the
> 3.sg. is _caka:ra_ < *_kew-kwor-e_ -- Brugmann's law operated in the open
> syllable.  (Not all accept this argument: the 1.sg. can have -a:-, presumably
> by analogy, and some deny Brugmann's Law altogether.  But in any event I know
> of no evidence *for* a laryngeal there.  Do you have any?)

Pat responds:

1) On general principles, since inflections are grammaticalized morphemes,
and IE has no morphemes beginning in a vowel, any inflection that manifests
itself apparently as a V, should be, ab origine, be presumed to be HV.

2) For whatever interest in may be, I published in Mother Tongue an essay
describing the differences between the person as vocalic differences, each
proceeded by H{1}, i.e. /?/:
<http:/www/geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/PERSPRO1.htm>

Please do not attribute all my views of 1990 to me now, however.

 Leo continues:

> Indeed I do.  You are, in effect, positing a nominal stem (not pronominal, if
> it has the meaning you attribute to it) which is shorter than any other in
> the language.

Pat responds:

Shorter than *se? or *me?  But, I am cheating a little. But, here I think
the humor hides the truth. I do not believe that the earliest Nostratic had
what we would properly call pronouns. I believe all pronouns are only nouns
in a specialized use.

Leo asks:

> Or do you mean the pronoun underlying Lat. _is-tu-d_, Gk. _to-d_,
> English _tha-t_ (the dental is a pronominal desinence)?

Pat responds:

Yes, I believe that there was a *noun*, which would have the reflex of *to
in IE, which meant 'tribal member', and was used in various positions that
we would characterize as pronominal or inflectional. We even have an
extended form of this *to in *teuta:-, 'people (probably better 'tribe')'.

Leo then asks:

> And what is {H} in your reconstruction?

Pat answers:

Nothing esoteric --- simply aspiration.

> Without a lot of explanation, your reconstruction (and in particular your
> gloss) cannot be accepted.

Of that I am very well aware.

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)