PIE e/o Ablaut

[proto-language]

Dear Jens and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen" <jer at cphling.dk>
To: <Indo-European at xkl.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2000 9:59 AM
Subject: PIE e/o Ablaut


> Dear Pat and anyone,
>
> I am truly grateful for the very explicitly critical reply to my mail, for
> it gives me occasion to comment on some points that appear to have become
> common heritage in the field of IE, even though the basis for them appears
> slender or non-existing. I have a problem, however, with dragging named
> authorities into this; do we have a right to bother third party just
> because _we_ cannot come to an agreement? Still, the literature is there,
> and for this very purpose. So, if our moderator permits, I'll react to
> your posting in full.

> On Sun, 9 Apr 2000, proto-language wrote:

[PRp]

>> To clarify what my understanding, wrong though it may be, of the purported
>> change from *e to *o is, I will quote Lehmann's description of the alleged
>> phenomenon, from page 110 of _Proto-Indo-European Phonology_, which I
>> support with some reservations:

>> "After various studies the conditions of change have been defined: /e'/
>> /e':/ [e' e': a' a':], with phonemic pitch accent, became [o' o':] when the
>> chief accent was shifted to another syllable, and the syllable accented
>> formerly received a secondary pitch accent."

[JER]

> That is not what we find. It may be a popular guess about the unknowable,
> but, as far as observations _can_ be made, they are very potently against
> it. This is not ad hoc, it's rather contra hoc. I could understand that a
> de-accented /e/ turned into /o/ if all unaccented /e/'s became /o/ (as I
> think they did at one point), but the next step for all would be to go on
> to zero (as I believe they in fact did). Surely, this cannot explain IE
> "o-grade", except for the plain cases where lengthening has occurred, so
> that we get, e.g., *-e':n vs. *'-o:n from accented *-e'n-s and unaccented
> *'-en-s respectively. The rule is completely inadequate to account for an
> alternation between accented o and zero (as in the perfect), nor does it
> tell us why the pretonic -o- of the causative has not been lost.

[PRp]

>> Now I feel, in view of the fact that this idea was originated and defended
>> by an Indo-Europeanist of undoubted competence, that a dismissive question
>> like "When will you ever learn?" is wholly unjustified. I, like some others,
>> may well have incorrect ideas about some (or many) things but, as I
>> understand it, one of the purposes of this list is to get constructive
>> feedback on ideas so corrections, where appropriate, may be made.

[JER]

> Agreed, and now it's happening, in both directions. Too bad that
> suprasegmentals are not being conveyed on the list, but my "When will you
> ever learn?" was meant with a ring of sarcasm, potentially against myself
> - meaning "How long can I go on disagreeing with everybody?" As opinions
> stand, it seems to be the facts that ought to give in: I am still waiting
> for solid evidence favoring the most popular views about ablaut; when will
> the IE languages ever learn how they are supposed to be?

 <snip>

I, by no means, intend to not respond to the rest of Jens' interesting
posting, but two matters first:

1) I would like to thank Jens for clarification of his remark, which I am
sorry I misunderstood.

2) Before we get into details, I would like a clarification from Jens
regarding his remarks above.

It seems to me that he is lumping stress-accent and tone-accent together. If
I understand Lehmann's argument properly, the essence of it is that they
must be treated separately.

Clarification?

Pat

PATRICK C. RYAN | PROTO-LANGUAGE at email.msn.com (501) 227-9947 * 9115 W. 34th
St. Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES: PROTO-LANGUAGE:
http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/ and PROTO-RELIGION:
http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/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)