i/u as original vowels [was "centum"/"satem" exceptions]

[Patrick C. Ryan]

Dear Stanley and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Stanley Friesen" <sarima at friesen.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 6:44 AM

> At 12:11 AM 3/5/00 +0000, Patrick C. Ryan wrote:
 <snip>

[PRp]

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

[SF]

> Phonemic status does not really require the existence of strict minimal
> pairs, just semantic distinction in the absence of phenetic conditioning
> factors.  Minimal pairs are merely a *sufficient* condition, not a
> necessary one.

[PR]

It is the "absence of phonetic conditioning factors" that would be the
problem for me. In the examples you cited, it seems that the augment (*e'-)
and the difference between an CVC with closed as against a CVC- with open
syllable would constitute (at least, potential) conditioning factors.

<snip>

>> [SFp]

>>> 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).

<snip>

[SF]

> Pokorny list both of them as one root: "bh(e)reu: bh(e)ru(:)".  It starts
> on page 143 in my printing.  The root *bheru is under subheading A., and
> the root bhreHu is under subheading B.

[PR]

Well, if I understand your point, I would have to say that the root in
question seems to be a very obvious derivation of 2. *bher-, listed on p.
132 --- extended by *-ew-. As for the "*u appear(ing) not to be associated
with an e-grade", surely the o-grade in Greek phoruto's suffices for
establishing that the initial consonant cluster is the result of reduction
due to stress-accent rather than original.

Also, one might notice Greek phre'ar where the *-u- is clearly treated like
a *-w-, and incidentally shows something close to an e-grade.

>> [SFp]

>>> There is *uper "over, above".

>> [PRp]

>> If one notates it as Pokorny does, namely *upe'r, the problem is
>> simplified:  **wepe'r -> *upe'r.

[SF]

> The problem is that this assumes the conclusion.  No trace of any such
> thing as **wepe'r is found anywhere.  This is my complaint: reconstructing
> an *e for the *sole* reason of avoiding "bare" *u and *i as vowels.

[PRp]

>> There are many examples of *weC- becoming *uC-: e.g.
>> *wep-:*wo/o:p-:*up-, 'water'.

[SF]
> Certainly there are.  But just because something is *common* doesn't make
> it *universal*.

[PR]

What distinguishes *upe'r from *wep- is that, apparently, the stress-accent
could shift to a subsequent syllable created by inflection, leaving the
first syllable in zero-grade (*wp- > *up-).

With *upe'r, apparently no subsequent suffix could occasion a
re-stress-accentuation of the first syllable, so that zero-grade would be
permanent.

I would not be a bit surprised if it turned out that *upe'r(i) was a -r(o/i)
derivation from 2. *wep-, 'throw, strew' (cf. Latvian vepris, 'boar').

<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)