Three-Way Contrast of Secondary Articulations in PIE

[proto-language]

[ moderator edited ]

Dear Stanley and IEists:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stanley Friesen" <sarima at friesen.net>
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 9:11 AM

[SFp]
>>> While I agree many of the roots probably originally were distinct, I do not
>>> think we yet have sufficient information to tell in what manner.  I
>>> certainly doubt there was a single cause for all of the mergers.

>>[PCRp]
>> First, our agreement: there is rarely a single cause for anything.

>> But -- putting glides aside, how were they kept separate?

[SF]
> My point is that in PIE per se, they weren't, except by formatives such as
> the noun stem formatives.  That is, by the time of the reconstructed
> language, the old conditioning factors were gone.

<snip>

[PCR]
Surely this needs a rethink. This might work if CVC-roots had only ONE
root-extension but your scenario means that an IE-speaker would have to
abstract CVC from a CVCC root in order to add other root-extensions. Frankly, I
don't think so.

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/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/indexR.html "Veit ec
at ec hecc, vindgá meiði a netr allar nío, geiri vndaþr . . . a þeim
meiþi, er mangi veit, hvers hann af rótom renn." (Hávamál 138)