PIE e/o Ablaut

[proto-language]

Dear Pete and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: "petegray" <petegray at btinternet.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2000 8:44 AM

[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.

[PG]

> What began as a cautious statement which allowed for exceptions has now
> apparently become dogma.   There are counter-examples within Sanskrit.
> For example
> (a) Rigveda 1:35:5 has hiatus in pra-ugam.   The u vowel cannot be taken as
> a vocalic form of w, nor can a-u be considered here as [a +w].

[PR]

In the context of the previous postings, I suggested that Old Indian /i/ and
/u/ were vocalic allophones of /y/ and /w/ in avocalic situations,

To what IE root do you propose to attribute [-ugam]?

As far as your example is concerned, I think we both know that if the IE
root were *preug-, the resulting Old Indian would be **pro:g-.

Is it unreasonable to suppose that [a-u-] is handled differently than
[-au-]?

[PG]

> (b) in Rigveda 1:1:9 the written svastaye must be scanned (and therefore was
> pronouned) as su-astaye.   This is not uncommon, and affects some forms with
> written -y- as well.

[PR]

And what problem does this present for my hypothesis? Pokorny suggest that
*su- is a zero-grade of *swe-. Is that so palpably wrong?

[PG]

> (c) The wise suggestion that vi-yukta should be distinguished from vyukta
> (vi+vac).

[PR]

I do not see this as having a bearing on the problem either.

[PG]

> So the analysis of Sanskrit as a one vowel language is not totally true.

[PR]

We have to distinguish --- and I believe you are not --- the proposition
that "Sanskrit is a one vowel language" from what *I* am proposing: "Old
Indian has one phonemic vowel".

[PRp]

>> Old Indian [a]+[y] becomes /e:/; O. I. [a] + [w] becomes /o:/.

[PG]

> On the one vowel theory of Sanskrit, these combinations cannot exist.
> [a+i]> /e:/, and [a+u} > /o:/.   [y] and [w] occur before vowels, and remain
> after [a].  For example, the aorist of the root yuj (yoke) is ayuji.

[PR]

Please see above.

As for your example, the /y/ in ayuki is before /u/, hence not vocalic.

[PG]

> y is very rare before a consonant in Sanskrit, and perhaps only in -yy-
> and -yv-.

[PR]

And is it your opinion that [-yy-] was pronounced /-yy-/? Or was it possibly
/-iy-/?

[PG]

> Furthermore, how would you explain -e:y-?

[PR]

as from *-eHey- or *-Hey-.

[PRp]

>> But where is the simple (uncompounded) /e/ in Old Indian?    It does not
>> exist so far as we can determine.

[PG]

> Yes it does - the law of palatalisation:  Kwe > ca, kekara > cakara etc.

[PR]

I have addressed this in another posting which should be dstributed before
this is.

[PRp]

>> I think it is obvious that /e/ is an allophone of /a/ in an environment
>> preceding /j/ etc

[PG]

> Very far from obvious, as there are so many counter-examples.

[PR]
Sorry, cannot agree that you have furnished them.

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)