PIE e/o Ablaut

[proto-language]

Dear Rich and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard M. Alderson III" <alderson at netcom.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 2:26 AM

> On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Patrick C. Ryan (proto-language at email.msn.com) wrote:

[PRp]

>> 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:/.

[RA]

> Let's be careful with notations here:  [] indicate *phonetic* claims, while
> // indicate *phonemic* claims.  It is /ay/ that becomes /e:/, not [ay] or
> [ai]; mutatis mutandis, the same holds for the relationship between /aw/ and
> /o:/.

[PR]

Thank you for noticing that.

[PRp]

>> 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.

[RA]

> Indic *a = /a/ is phonetically [@], by which I mean a mid-central unrounded
> vowel, not a reduced vowel.  This is often written in (American) phonology
> texts with the inverted lowercase <v> symbol (cf. Laduslaw & Pullum,
> _Phonetic Symbol Guide_, 2nd edition).  The sound of the collocations [@i]
> and [@u] are familiar to those who have heard Canadian speakers from southern
> Ontario or US speakers from the Tidewater region of Virginia, and their
> transition to [e:] and [o:] is a simple matter of coloring of [@] and
> lowering of [i]/[u] by the processes well-described by Patricia Stampe in
> papers published in the Ohio State Working Papers in Linguistics in the
> mid-1970s.  There is no need for them *ever* to have been [ei] and
> [ou]--though that is not ruled out.

[PR]

A good point. And, in view of examples like pra-ugam, probably very
pertinent.

[PRp]

>> 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/;

[RA]

> Impossible, if you truly mean the notation you are using.  I think you
> mean that [e] and [o] are allophones of /a/, but by the time we are speaking
> of Indic, those relationships simply do not exist in the sense you intend.

[PR]

Well, let me try again. Old Indian [e:] is an allophone of /a/ in an
environment preceding /j/; [o:] is an allophone of /a/ in an environment
preceding /w/. And yes, I do realize that closer in time, Ve:V could
contrast with VaV, imparting phonemic status to /e:/.

<snip>

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)