"syllabicity"

[Patrick C. Ryan]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

Dear Ed and IEists:

----- Original Message -----
From: Edward Heil <edwardheil at usa.net>
Sent: Monday, April 12, 1999 3:52 PM

>Hi.  I just read Winifred Lehmann's _Theoretical Bases of Proto-Indo-European
>Linguistics_ (I believe that's the name; don't have my copy next to me).

>He refers to the theory set forth in his earlier _Proto-Indo-European
>Phonology_ that there were no phonemic vowels in early PIE, that on the
>contrary there was a non-segmental phonemic quality which he calls
>"syllabicity" which would result in the phonetic manifestation of vowels in
>certain positions.

>Unfortunately, he doesn't give enough details for me to understand exactly
>how
>this process would have worked, and I don't have access to his earlier book.
>I wonder if anyone familiar with this idea could give me a quick rundown on
>the details?

>[ Moderator's comment:
>  Lehmann's analysis is a monument to the structuralism of the 1940s.  In any
>  reasonable phonological theory, this analysis could not be made.  (If looked
>  at from the viewpoint of Stampe's natural phonology, Lehmann's "syllabicity"
>  is simply the vowel /a/, with allophonic variation becoming phonemicized
>  over time.)  For another example of the same kind of analysis, one which has
>  been examined in the literature, see Aert Kuipers' monograph on Kabardian
>  from the 1960s.  I forget the exact title, but it was published in the
>  _Janua Linguarum, Series Minor_ by Mouton; it should be available in a
>  university library.
>  --rma ]

I have a very different opinion from our moderator.

For me, Lehmann's concept of syllabicity is the sine qua non of any
successful effort to link Indo-European and Semitic. Without it, no sense
can be made of IE apophony or Semitic consonantal roots. Without it, all
attempts to understand the structure of Nostratic as the ancestor of IE and
Semitic will be doomed.

Unfortunately, none of the Nostraticists have understood this. As a
consequence, the work of Illich-Svitych and Bomhard and others is tragically
flawed.

Most interestingly, the relationship between IE and Semitic was not a
desideratum for Lehmann when he made his analysis, which was made solely on
the strength of the facts in IE.

The basic scenario is so simple that I am amazed that most linguists have
not understood and adopted Lehmann's basic theory.

1) we find in IE roots with short vowels exclusively of the basic form Ce/oC
(where neither C is a 'laryngeal' [H]);

2) we have two choices for the reconstruction of the root vowel(s) for *any*
earlier stage of IE or ancestor of IE:

a) to assume that apophony was present in every earlier stage of IE and in
every ancestor of IE, including Nostratic; and beyond or

b) to assume that apophony was not present in every earlier stage of IE and
in every ancestor of IE, including Nostratic; and beyond.

3) None of the Nostraticists have assumed a); in fact, I presently know of
no one who would assert a).

4) Facts like palatized dorsals (g{^}, g{^}, k{^}) argue strongly for an
ancestor of IE that had phonemic [e], i.e. suggests b).

5) Facts such as roots of identical phonetic shape, like *1. pe/ol-, 'flow';
*2a. pe/ol-, 'push'; *2b. pe/ol-, 'dust'; *3a. pe/ol-, 'fold'; *3b. pe/ol-,
'cover', *4. pe/ol-, 'plate'; *5. pe/ol-, 'sell'; *6. pe/ol-, 'gray'; etal.,
indicate that some device distinguished among these roots *prior* to the
extensive use of root-extensions; any other explanation than originally
phonemic vowels is unnecessarily speculative, and has no basis in the later
facts of IE.

6) Personally, I believe that Lehmann's "syllabicity" can be phonetically
identified as [a] however it is not necessary to assume this. A Lehmann root
like *p_l (with [ _ ] indicating syllabicity), might have had multiple
realizations of _ so long as the vocalic realizations were allophones of
[ _ ], and did not provide semantic differentiation. Thus, the comparison
with Kuipers' analysis of Kabardian is not necessarily appropriate.

7) Based on the fact that Semitic shows no signs whatsoever of phonemic
vowels, we can presume that the parent of Semitic expressed semantic
differences solely through the consonants. If Lehmann's syllabicity is
acknowledged, then IE also expressed semantic differences *solely* through
the consonants, and the Nostratic parent of them both, at least at a late
stage, must have been monovocalic (as I believe) or indifferently vocalic.

Although Lehmann addressed only IE facts, his theory of "syllabicity" is the
only rational basis for constructing a Nostratic that can successfully unify
IE and Semitic. It is one of the most significant results of analysis in
linguistics of the 20th century.

Pat

PATRICK C. RYAN (501) 227-9947; FAX/DATA (501)312-9947 9115 W. 34th St.
Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803 and PROTO-RELIGION:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/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)