"centum"/"satem" "exceptions" [was Re: Northwest IE attributes]

[Patrick C. Ryan]

Dear Stanley and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Stanley Friesen" <sarima at friesen.net>
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 4:53 AM

> At 10:09 PM 3/1/00 +0000, Patrick C. Ryan wrote:

<snip>

>> <SFp>

>>> Many have tried to make this so.  But all attempts I have seen come up
>>> short.  At the level of the final unity, there are many minimal pairs that
>>> differ in /*e/ vs. /*o/.  It is simply not possible for them to have been
>>> conditioned variants anymore well prior to the breakup.

>> <PRp>

>> Well, let us look at those pairs which you feel display minimal contrast.

<SF>

> As far as minimal contrast goes, one can simply look at the "perfect"
> versus the "aorist" of many verbs (especially in the third singular).

<PR>

All three aorists have the *H(1)e- prefix. No perfect has it.

According to Larry's dictionary, a _minimal pair_ is "two words of distinct
meaning which exhibit different segments at one point but identical segments
at all other points".

In his examples, no pair is given like **sing-sung so I presume that
"meaning" does *not* include nuaces created by inflection or conjugation.

Even if one ignored the personal suffixes (which is hardly permissible), any
PIE aorist-perfect pair would contrast in at least two points: 1) *e/*o
Ablaut and +/- H(1)e- prefix.

Now you may have another definition of minimal pair but according to this
one, which I think it generally accepted, PIE aorisy and perfect *cannot* be
termed a 'minimal pair'.

<SF>

> A quick perusal of Pokorny (yes, I know, out of date) gives:
> *kem: "summen"
> and
> kom: "neben, bei, mit"

<PR>

I see you have not indicated *kem in the way that Pokorny does, namely
"*kem-".

What the omission of the hyphen masks is that there is no entry in Pokorny
for any language that shows the bare root "*kem*.

Therefore, by reason of the definition cited above, I do not believe that
*kem-+X ('summen') can be considered as a part of a minimal pair with *kom,
'neben, bei, mit'.

<SF>

> That the e/o distinction was phonemic at breakup is unquestionable.

<PR>

Unless you can produce an acceptable minimal pair contrasting *e/*o, I
believe the question of phonemicity remains open.

>> <PRp>

>> I agree that an older accentual system is a reasonable theory, which I also
>> agree is viable. So, if I understand correctly, you are proposing that this
>> older system predates PIE?

<SF>

> Not really, just mentioning it as a *possibility*.  I find a switch from a
> length distinction to be more plausible.

>> <SFp>

>>> Note, when there is only one non-high vowel in a language, it is *always*
>>> best viewed as /a/, not /e/.  (It may have /e/ as an *allophone* in some
>>> environments, but its neutral allophone will always be low).

>> <PRp>

>> I agree 100%. And it is /*a/ which I theorize preceded /*e,*o/ in what I
>> call the Pontic stage, which I believe preceded PIE. But I also believe the
>> non-phonemic status of the /*e,*o/ Ablaut suggests strongly that it
>> developed from a single predecessor.

<SF>

> I tend to agree.  I think you can make your theory work as well with a
> length distinction though, which is phonetically more likely.

<PR>

I read Miguel's exposition of this but, in my answer to him, you may see
that I was not persuaded.

<PRp>

>> stress-accented syllable had /*o/. On this basis, I believe that no /*a/
>> existed in PIE except possibly as a result of a reduction of /*a:/ deriving
>> from a "laryngeal" + /*a/ in the Pontic (pre-PIE) stage.

<SF>

> I tend to agree.  I reconstruct a PIE vowel system with e/o/i/u.

<PR>

For that, you would need to present minimal pairs contrasting *Ce/oC with
*CiC and *CuC. Can it be done?

<SF>

> [Note, I consider it likely that laryngeals survived into many of the
> daughter languages, so lengthening due to loss of laryngeals was probably
> *post* PIE].

>> <SFp>

>>> I can only accept this where there is good evidence of alternation with
>>> /*ue/ or /*eu/.  There are just too many cases where there *is* no such
>>> variation visible.  [The obvious examples are mostly inflectional ending
>>> and pronouns, but there are certainly others as well].

>> <PRp>

>> Let us look at some of those examples. The strongest argument for this idea
>> is foreclosed to me because it involves the "N" word.

<SF>

> Well, there is the root Pokorny list as *bheu.  However, the only branch
> showing an e-grade of it is Indo-Iranian.  Outside of that it is
> universally in "zero" grade.  Thus I do not believe the e-grade is ancient.
>  I reconstruct *bhuH "grow, increase".

<PR>

I wonder if you have Pokorny there or are trusting to memory.

I see several examples of *e-grade in languages other than Indo-Iranian,
e.g. Armenian boin, 'nest'; Albanian bane", 'dwelling'; Gothic bauan,
'dwell', etal. --- as well as some *o-grade examples.

<SF>

> Then there is the pair *bheru- and bhreHu, which appear to be two distinct
> roots.  In both the *u appears not to be associated with an e-grade at all
> (since the laryngeal comes in between in the second).

<PR>

There are several *bher- roots. Why not expand on this a bit?

<SF>

> There is *uper "over, above".

<PR>

If one notates it as Pokorny does, namely *upe'r, the problem is simplified:
**wepe'r -> *upe'r. There are many examples of *weC- becoming *uC-: e.g.
*wep-:*wo/o:p-:*up-, 'water'.

<SF>

> The root listed as *ueidh shows no actual reflexes with e-grade in Pokorny,
> so one must really reconstruct *widh: "trennen".

<PR>

What about Old Indian ve:dh- or German *waisan < *woidh-son- (we should take
cognizance of o-grades in this context, should we not?).

<SF>

> And those are just some random gleanings from Pokorny.

<PR>

Frankly, you may need to go back between the rows.

>> <PRp>

>> I think we must be careful about overvaluing typological facts. If the
>> Pontic stage of pre-PIE were the only language in all our knowledge to
>> employ a single vowel (even for a very short period), phonological rather
>> than typological considerations should influence more strongly. Typology,
>> generally, is a heuristic device, would you not agree?

<SF>

> Up to a point.  If we find ourselves reconstructing something that is
> completely unknown in well-attested languages, we really do need to think
> three times before accepting the reconstruction.  [Absolute universals are
> rare, and when they do exist are probably fundamental].

<PR>

Agreed.

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)