"centum"/"satem" "exceptions" [was Re: Northwest IE attributes]

[Stanley Friesen]

At 10:09 PM 3/1/00 +0000, Patrick C. Ryan wrote:

><SF>
>> Many have tried to make this so.  But all attempts I have seen come up
>> short.  At the level of the final unity, there are many minimal pairs that
>> differ in /*e/ vs. /*o/.  It is simply not possible for them to have been
>> conditioned variants anymore well prior to the breakup.

><PR>
>Well, let us look at those pairs which you feel display minimal contrast.

As far as minimal contrast goes, one can simply look at the "perfect"
versus the "aorist" of many verbs (especially in the third singular).

A quick perusal of Pokorny (yes, I know, out of date) gives:
*kem: "summen"
and
kom: "neben, bei, mit"

That the e/o distinction was phonemic at breakup is unquestionable.

><PR>
>I agree that an older accentual system is a reasonable theory, which I also
>agree is viable. So, if I understand correctly, you are proposing that this
>older system predates PIE?

Not really, just mentioning it as a *possibility*.  I find a switch from a
length distinction to be more plausible.

><SF>
>> Note, when there is only one non-high vowel in a language, it is *always*
>> best viewed as /a/, not /e/.  (It may have /e/ as an *allophone* in some
>> environments, but its neutral allophone will always be low).

><PR>
>I agree 100%. And it is /*a/ which I theorize preceded /*e,*o/ in what I
>call the Pontic stage, which I believe preceded PIE. But I also believe the
>non-phonemic status of the /*e,*o/ Ablaut suggests strongly that it
>developed from a single predecessor.

I tend to agree.  I think you can make your theory work as well with a
length distinction though, which is phonetically more likely.

>stress-accented syllable had /*o/. On this basis, I believe that no /*a/
>existed in PIE except possibly as a result of a reduction of /*a:/ deriving
>from a "laryngeal" + /*a/ in the Pontic (pre-PIE) stage.

I tend to agree.  I reconstruct a PIE vowel system with e/o/i/u.

[Note, I consider it likely that laryngeals survived into many of the
daughter languages, so lengthening due to loss of laryngeals was probably
*post* PIE].

><SF>
>> I can only accept this where there is good evidence of alternation with
>> /*ue/ or /*eu/.  There are just too many cases where there *is* no such
>> variation visible.  [The obvious examples are mostly inflectional ending
>> and pronouns, but there are certainly others as well].

><PR>
>Let us look at some of those examples. The strongest argument for this idea
>is foreclosed to me because it involves the "N" word.

Well, there is the root Pokorny list as *bheu.  However, the only branch
showing an e-grade of it is Indo-Iranian.  Outside of that it is
universally in "zero" grade.  Thus I do not believe the e-grade is ancient.
 I reconstruct *bhuH "grow, increase".

Then there is the pair *bheru- and bhreHu, which appear to be two distinct
roots.  In both the *u appears not to be associated with an e-grade at all
(since the laryngeal comes in between in the second).

There is *uper "over, above".

The root listed as *ueidh shows no actual reflexes with e-grade in Pokorny,
so one must really reconstruct *widh: "trennen".

And those are just some random gleanings from Pokorny.

><PR>
>I think we must be careful about overvaluing typological facts. If the
>Pontic stage of pre-PIE were the only language in all our knowledge to
>employ a single vowel (even for a very short period), phonological rather
>than typological considerations should influence more strongly. Typology,
>generally, is a heuristic device, would you not agree?

Up to a point.  If we find ourselves reconstructing something that is
completely unknown in well-attested languages, we really do need to think
three times before accepting the reconstruction.  [Absolute universals are
rare, and when they do exist are probably fundamental].

--------------
May the peace of God be with you.         sarima at ix.netcom.com