PIE e/o Ablaut

[Patrick C. Ryan]

Dear Stanley and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Stanley Friesen" <sarima at friesen.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 5:53 AM

> At 08:21 AM 3/13/00 +0000, Patrick C. Ryan wrote:

>> [SFp]

>>> This is where I start to have a problem.  As far as I know, NO living
>>> language has only one vowel, or at most only one or two such languages
>>> exist.  The normal minimum is *three* vowels: /a/, /i/, /u/.

>> [PRp]

>> I do not suppose that this was a stable situation. But, as I have written
>> before, that does not, in my opinion, mean that it could not have occurred
>> briefly.

[SF]

> Only if you can show even *one* language today with only one phonemic
> vowel.  If NO modern language has only one vowel, then this must be taken
> as a true, absolute  universal.  If it is an absolute universal, then, yes,
> it *must* be excluded, even as a transitory phase.

[PR]

I cannot believe that you will maintain this position upon reflection. No
"modern" bird has the wingspan of a pterodactyl but that certainly does not
mean that no bird can ever have had such a wingspan.

As for "(true) absolute unversal(s)", I do not know of any in linguistics or
any other field. I enjoyed Plato myself but I think it is a mistake to take
him seriously.

[PRp]

>> Look at Old Indian. There, any vowel other than [a] is clearly a combination
>> of [a] + [y], [w], or [H] ) or [a] of we consider vrddhi.

[SF]

> Derivationally and historically, yes.  But synchronically within the
> language, 'e' and 'o' are true phonemic vowels.  (Actually, so are 'i' and
> 'u', if I remember my Sanskrit correctly).

[PR]

Well, let us be a bit more precise. Old Indian [a]+[y] does *not* become /e/
rather it becomes /e:/; O. I. [a] + [w] does *not* become /o/ rather it
becomes /o:/. Careful notation distinguishes between long and short vowels
although, in theory, I suppose there is no problem writing [o] so long as
everyone knows that this indicates a long vowel  /o:/.

Now, I suppose that opinions can reasonably differ on the (interesting?)
following question:

I believe that in the earliest Indian, /e:/ must have, at least
transitorily, have been pronounced like English /ey/ (Trager-Smith), and
/o:/ like English /ow/ (T-S); and the early Indian grammarians clearly treat
these sounds as diphthongal.

But where is the simple (uncompounded) /e/ in Old Indian? Or the simple /o/.

It does not exist so far as we can determine.

I think it is obvious that /e/ is an allophone of /a/ in an environment
preceding /j/ and /o/ is an allophone of /a/ in an environment preceding
/w/; and, as they have no existence outside of these conditioned
environments, they cannot be considered phonemes, whether they retained
their earliest diphthongal character or not.

[SF]

> The fact that the vowel in 'leapt' (in English) is obviously *derived* from
> the same vowel as in 'leap' does not make the distinction in vowel quality
> any less phonemic in the current language.

[PR]

Yes, but /e/ is not an allophone of /i/, is it?

[PRp]

>> Well, call it pre-PIE if you like. I was only trying to avoid the "N" word.

[SF]

> It is a standard use of terminology.  An internally reconstructed stage
> earlier than a basic proto-language is prefixed with "pre-".

[PR]

Regardless of its acceptance, I find it very strange. Pre- means 'before';
if a form occurred *before* PIE came into existence, then it is non-PIE. If
it is non-PIE, why not call it something else --- like Nostratic?

>> [SF]

>>> Those that show 'o' in PIE proper, except where that is analogical or
>>> grammatical.

>> [PRp]

>> Of which I have yet to see convincing examples.

[SF]

> Umm, what sort of example would you expect?

[PR]

True minimal pairs, a paltry requirement for phonemicity that would be
undisputed in any other language.

[SF]

> The shift **a: > *o would have
> been a regular phonetic change, and thus would have been essentially
> universal.  By the very nature of the hypothesis no *direct* trace would be
> left - ALL of the old a:s would have gone over into o's, resulting in an
> alternation between *e and *o where there had formerly been one between **a
> and **a:.  So, in a sense the e/o alternation *is* the example.

[PR]

I do not think I am the only reader who will find this dizzyingly circular.

The fact of e/o alternation "proves" an a/a: alternation?

Hmmh?

And why is that preferable to considering /o/ an allophone of /e/ under
certain accentual/tonal conditions?

[SF]

> And that particular change is well attested in later languages.  It
> happened between Old English and Modern English, for instance.  OE /sta:n-/
> became Modern English 'stone', but the short vowel, as seen in my name,
> remained low and unrounded.

> [The name 'Stanley' derives from OE 'stanlig' or 'stanlice'].

[PR]

Certainly very interesting. But your example certainly does not mean that we
should expect OE *sa:wian for ME sew (/so:/) when seowian is attested, does
it?

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)