8.137, Disc: Low vowels in PIE

linguist at linguistlist.org linguist at linguistlist.org
Thu Jan 30 18:53:15 UTC 1997


LINGUIST List:  Vol-8-137. Thu Jan 30 1997. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 8.137, Disc: Low vowels in PIE

Moderators: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar: Texas A&M U. <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>
            T. Daniel Seely: Eastern Michigan U. <seely at linguistlist.org>

Review Editor:     Andrew Carnie <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Associate Editors: Ljuba Veselinova <ljuba at linguistlist.org>
                   Ann Dizdar <ann at linguistlist.org>
Assistant Editor:  Sue Robinson <sue at linguistlist.org>
Technical Editor:  Ron Reck <ron at linguistlist.org>

Software development: John H. Remmers <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
                      Zhiping Zheng <zzheng at online.emich.edu>

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/

Editor for this issue: Susan Robinson <sue at linguistlist.org>

=================================Directory=================================

1)
Date:  Mon, 27 Jan 1997 20:33:15 +0000
From:  "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <mcv at pi.net>
Subject:  Re: 8.113, Sum: Low vowels in PIE

2)
Date:  	Mon, 27 Jan 1997 22:43:07 -0600
From:  Peter Daniels <pdaniels at press-gopher.uchicago.edu>
Subject:  Re: 8.113, Sum: Low vowels in PIE

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:  Mon, 27 Jan 1997 20:33:15 +0000
From:  "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <mcv at pi.net>
Subject:  Re: 8.113, Sum: Low vowels in PIE

A short comment Steven Schaufele's summary:

> This relevant distinction was brought up by another
> respondent, who noted that, at least in terms of its impact on Indo-
> Europeanist studies, in spite of its title Lubotsky's paper really
> addresses the question of the existence in PIE of an actual phonetic
> [a], not a phoneme /a/.  (Obviously, if PIE really was a monovocalic
> language it would, by definition, be meaningless to ask whether it had
> a `phoneme' /a/, as distinct from a `phoneme' /i/, /u/, /e/, or /o/;
> it would be more accurate to say that it had a `phoneme' /V/, or
> /+vocalic/, or something like that.)

Actually this respondent (i.e. me) had not thought of that.
It is of course a completely valid point if PIE ever had a single
vowel phone.

My criticism of Lubotsky's paper's title ("Against a PIE phoneme *a")
was in fact that what Lubotsky actually tried to disprove was the
existence of the reconstructed entity *a (however it was pronounced),
not whether PIE had a phoneme /a/.  IF we accept Lubotsky's
argument, PIE is left with two vowels *e and *o (besides *i and *u).
Such a reconstruction cannot be attacked on typological grounds for
its lack of /a/, since one of the two (*o is the obvious choice) can
be allowed a phonological realization /a/ with no change at all from
the comparative point of view.  *a is not the same as /a/.

If we further merge *e and *o into a pre-Ablaut **a, Pre-PIE still
emerges with a three vowel system (**a, **i, **u).  There is no
reason to deny *i and *u vowelhood before the emergence of Ablaut
(IF there is after Ablaut).   In conclusion: (Pre-)PIE never had a
single vowel "phoneme".  Not only is it typologically implausible, it
does not follow from the reconstruction.

- --------------------------
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv at pi.net
- --------------------------


-------------------------------- Message 2 -------------------------------

Date:  	Mon, 27 Jan 1997 22:43:07 -0600
From:  Peter Daniels <pdaniels at press-gopher.uchicago.edu>
Subject:  Re: 8.113, Sum: Low vowels in PIE

Szemerenyi's Einfuehrung is about to be published in English
translation by Oxford University Press. The announced price is rather
high, but not, I think, as high as the present US price of the German
original.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-8-137



More information about the LINGUIST mailing list