Ablaut et al

[Rory M Larson]

Rory wrote:
>> Looking at the data you present, I would be inclined to read these 
stems as
>> phonemically CVC in proto-Siouan, but as operating within a 
phonological
>> system that required a small, meaningless, schwa-like vocalization 
after
>> a final consonant to clarify that final sound.

Bob writes:
> But your “schwa-like” epenthetic vowel is [–e] in 12 or 13 languages in 
several
> subgroups over a 2000 mile stretch.  This is the equivalent of 
reconstructing *-e
> in these cases.  You’re just reconstructing *-e as a “rule” or process 
instead of
> as an “item”.  But with a c. 3000 time depth, we don’t have any way to 
distinguish
> the two equivalent “solutions”, and the phonological result is the same 
either way.

Correct.  I was disputing the rigid dichotomy you raised in your previous 
post to make a CVC hypothesis for proto-Siouan seem unreasonable.  I was 
not particularly disputing the substance of your thesis regarding the 
later development of ablaut in Siouan, and especially Dakotan.  By your 
solution, *-e goes away in the face of a suffixed *-a because it is 
phonologically weak.  By mine, it goes away because it is not really there 
at all.


>> . . . it would stay consonant final, as in Winnebago or Mandan.

> The so-called “consonant finals” in Mandan are not real in the sense 
that they are
> in Winnebago.  A final –e in these stems is actually pronounced.  They 
seem to be a
> creation of Bob Hollow, who tried the “all final –e in Mandan are 
epenthetic” solution
> in his dissertation.  He fell into the trap of the Dakotacentric 
“consonant-final
> stems” because he couldn’t hear the long/short vowel distinction in 
Mandan.  Carter
> and Mixco cleared this up.

Thanks for this explanation.  I stand corrected on Mandan.


> This is another type of analysis that I distrust.  What you and Hollow 
are saying,
> in effect, is that all short unaccented vowels can occur word-finally 
except the most
> common, namely, -e.  And for some unfathomable reason, short unaccented 
-e alone can’t.
> This trick was toyed with in the ’70s as a means of creating additional 
“economy”.
> But it does so at the expense of badly skewing the vowel distribution 
and basic syllable
> structure.  Theoretically, of course, in ANY language with a requirement 
of open syllable
> structure, it is, in fact, possible to “predict” the statistically most 
common vowel
> syllable-finally.  But this sort of parsimony has generally been 
considered spurious.

I'm confused here.  Can you give me a few examples of widespread old 
Siouan words with these word-final short unaccented vowels other than -e 
that we're talking about here?  Also, why would suggesting that _some_ 
words of the form CVCe are underlyingly CVC imply that _all_ words of that 
form necessarily are?


>> From what work I have done with Omaha, I think these final -e sounds 
receive much
>> less stress than previous vowels in the stem, and the speakers 
sometimes seem a little
>> ambivalent about whether they should be pronounced -a or -e.

> I respectfully doubt that this would true for Omaha-dominant speakers. 
Speakers can
> normally hear/produce phonemic distinctions 100 times out of 100.  I can 
see English-dominant
> speakers producing schwas and the like.  But I have to say I didn’t get 
that sort of doubt
> from Ponca, Osage and Kaw speakers.

I'm certainly open to this possibility, but the question remains whether 
these are, in fact, phonemic distinctions.


>> When I try to get them to choose one, I can usually make them agree 
that it's -e,
>> but perhaps I'm the one imposing something on the language that isn't 
actually there.

> Given the cognate sets, plus my limited experience with Omaha, I think 
your hearing is
> just fine.

Thanks.  I think my hearing is reasonably good too.  But my hearing 
sometimes interprets the sound as -a when they say it spontaneously, 
though I can often get them to admit that it's -e when I force them to 
choose.  And I know that much of my foundational knowledge of Omaha 
grammar comes from linguists, not directly from the speakers.  Also, that 
a good deal of what I thought I knew from the former has been convincingly 
challenged, corrected, or greatly augmented by the latter.


Best,
Rory

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20110902/084e7fa4/attachment.html>