Three-Way Contrast of Secondary Articulations in PIE
sarima at friesen.net
Sat Mar 17 14:17:42 UTC 2001
At 06:36 PM 3/15/01 -0500, Rich Alderson wrote:
>Any word in which *i or *u can be reconstructed. That they may alternate in
>morphophonological rules with *y and *w is irrelevant to their phonemic
>status, though the consonantal forms may have originated in fortitions of
>originally vocalic segments. (For the concept of fortition processes, see P.
>Donegan's Ohio State dissertation, still available I believe as a working
>paper from the linguistics department there.)
I am not sure if this is what you mean here, but I find I have a tendency
in my speech to excrete a consonantal segment between two vowels in
different syllables. Thus, starting with a sequence like 'u' + 'e' I tend
to produce the sequence 'uwe', and for sequences like 'ei' + 'e' I tend to
produce sequences like 'eye' or 'eiye'. Even without an original high
vowel, I tend towards consonantal glides, thus I more readily pronounce 'e'
+ 'e' as 'eye' than as 'e?e' (using '?' for the glottal stop), and 'o' + o'
tends towards 'owo' for me.
As far as I can see, these sorts of processes could produce most of the 'w'
and 'y' sounds reconstructed for PIE.
May the peace of God be with you. sarima at ix.netcom.com
More information about the Indo-european