PIE e/o Ablaut

[petegray]

>>> Look at Old Indian. There, any vowel other than [a] is clearly a
>>> combination of [a] + [y], [w], or [H] ) or [a] of we consider vrddhi.

What began as a cautious statement which allowed for exceptions has now
apparently become dogma.   There are counter-examples within Sanskrit.
For example
(a) Rigveda 1:35:5 has hiatus in pra-ugam.   The u vowel cannot be taken as
a vocalic form of w, nor can a-u be considered here as [a +w].
(b) in Rigveda 1:1:9 the written svastaye must be scanned (and therefore was
pronouned) as su-astaye.   This is not uncommon, and affects some forms with
written -y- as well.
(c) The wise suggestion that vi-yukta should be distinguished from vyukta
(vi+vac).

So the analysis of Sanskrit as a one vowel language is not totally true.

> Old Indian [a]+[y] becomes /e:/; O. I. [a] + [w] becomes /o:/.

On the one vowel theory of Sanskrit, these combinations cannot exist.
[a+i]> /e:/, and [a+u} > /o:/.   [y] and [w] occur before vowels, and remain
after [a].  For example, the aorist of the root yuj (yoke) is ayuji.

y is very rare before a consonant in Sanskrit, and perhaps only in -yy-
and -yv-.
Furthermore, how would you explain -e:y-?

> But where is the simple (uncompounded) /e/ in Old Indian?    It does not
> exist so far as we can determine.

Yes it does - the law of palatalisation:  Kwe > ca, kekara > cakara etc.

> I think it is obvious that /e/ is an allophone of /a/ in an environment
> preceding /j/ etc

Very far from obvious, as there are so many counter-examples.

Peter