8.137, Disc: Low vowels in PIE
linguist at linguistlist.org
linguist at linguistlist.org
Thu Jan 30 18:53:15 UTC 1997
LINGUIST List: Vol-8-137. Thu Jan 30 1997. ISSN: 1068-4875.
Subject: 8.137, Disc: Low vowels in PIE
Moderators: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar: Texas A&M U. <aristar at linguistlist.org>
Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>
T. Daniel Seely: Eastern Michigan U. <seely at linguistlist.org>
Review Editor: Andrew Carnie <carnie at linguistlist.org>
Associate Editors: Ljuba Veselinova <ljuba at linguistlist.org>
Ann Dizdar <ann at linguistlist.org>
Assistant Editor: Sue Robinson <sue at linguistlist.org>
Technical Editor: Ron Reck <ron at linguistlist.org>
Software development: John H. Remmers <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
Zhiping Zheng <zzheng at online.emich.edu>
Home Page: http://linguistlist.org/
Editor for this issue: Susan Robinson <sue at linguistlist.org>
=================================Directory=================================
1)
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 20:33:15 +0000
From: "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <mcv at pi.net>
Subject: Re: 8.113, Sum: Low vowels in PIE
2)
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 22:43:07 -0600
From: Peter Daniels <pdaniels at press-gopher.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: 8.113, Sum: Low vowels in PIE
-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 20:33:15 +0000
From: "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <mcv at pi.net>
Subject: Re: 8.113, Sum: Low vowels in PIE
A short comment Steven Schaufele's summary:
> This relevant distinction was brought up by another
> respondent, who noted that, at least in terms of its impact on Indo-
> Europeanist studies, in spite of its title Lubotsky's paper really
> addresses the question of the existence in PIE of an actual phonetic
> [a], not a phoneme /a/. (Obviously, if PIE really was a monovocalic
> language it would, by definition, be meaningless to ask whether it had
> a `phoneme' /a/, as distinct from a `phoneme' /i/, /u/, /e/, or /o/;
> it would be more accurate to say that it had a `phoneme' /V/, or
> /+vocalic/, or something like that.)
Actually this respondent (i.e. me) had not thought of that.
It is of course a completely valid point if PIE ever had a single
vowel phone.
My criticism of Lubotsky's paper's title ("Against a PIE phoneme *a")
was in fact that what Lubotsky actually tried to disprove was the
existence of the reconstructed entity *a (however it was pronounced),
not whether PIE had a phoneme /a/. IF we accept Lubotsky's
argument, PIE is left with two vowels *e and *o (besides *i and *u).
Such a reconstruction cannot be attacked on typological grounds for
its lack of /a/, since one of the two (*o is the obvious choice) can
be allowed a phonological realization /a/ with no change at all from
the comparative point of view. *a is not the same as /a/.
If we further merge *e and *o into a pre-Ablaut **a, Pre-PIE still
emerges with a three vowel system (**a, **i, **u). There is no
reason to deny *i and *u vowelhood before the emergence of Ablaut
(IF there is after Ablaut). In conclusion: (Pre-)PIE never had a
single vowel "phoneme". Not only is it typologically implausible, it
does not follow from the reconstruction.
- --------------------------
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv at pi.net
- --------------------------
-------------------------------- Message 2 -------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 22:43:07 -0600
From: Peter Daniels <pdaniels at press-gopher.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: 8.113, Sum: Low vowels in PIE
Szemerenyi's Einfuehrung is about to be published in English
translation by Oxford University Press. The announced price is rather
high, but not, I think, as high as the present US price of the German
original.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-8-137
More information about the LINGUIST
mailing list