Subject: re : 8 . 137 , disc : low vowels in pie

linguist @ linguistlist . org wrote : > subject : 8 . 137 , disc : low vowels in pie > editor for this issue : susan robinson < sue @ linguistlist . org > > > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = directory = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = > > 1 ) > date : mon , 27 jan 1997 20 : 33 : 15 + 0000 > from : " miguel carrasquer vidal " < mcv @ pi . net > > subject : re : 8 . 113 , sum : low vowels in pie > > 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 . i am truly surprised that the question of the original vowel quality of ie < i > and < u > can arise again and again . there is not a single good argument for not regarding ie < i > and < u > as reductions from < y > and < w > : 1 ) if < i > were an ie vowel , why is it that an ie dictionary like pokorny has an i - section with two entries ( both of which have slavic cognates in jv - ) but 35 entries under y - ? 2 ) if < u > were an ie vowel , why is it that an ie dictionary like pokorny has an u - section with eight entries ( most of which have slavic or italic cognates in vv - ) but 141 entries under w - ? 3 ) compare this to 146 beginning with a - ( he ) and 95 under e - ( he ) and 43 und o - ( he ) . 4 ) if ie < i > or < u > were original , when initial , we would have to reconstruct hi / u , the same " laryngeal " that , with < e > , yields ie e - , i . e . one which does not change the quality of the vowel . it is not reasonable to hi and hu the source of these ten entries ( combined ) and attribute the some vowelhood to i / u that e has ( 95 entries ) . 5 ) the 189 entries beginning with a - and o - cannot arise from * hi or * hu ( at least no one has seriously suggested this to my knowledge ) , therefore must arise from a different combinations of he under different circumstances . this gives us 284 entries for ( h ) e as against 10 entries ( combined ( h ) i - and ( h ) u - ) , a very strange distribution of vowels . 6 ) i will not bother to cite aa cognates for ie words with cvi ( c ) or cvu ( c ) because many list readers do not accept the nostratic parentage of ie and aa but for those who can entertain such a heresy , we find that ie cvi and cvu correspond to aa cvy / $ [ ain ] and cvw . 7 ) typology has been severely abused in this question . whatever old indian may have been , as we find it , it has one vowel , < a > , and every other " vowel " is simply derived from a + h / y / w . why ie could not have been such a language , in which the h / w / y had not yet been resolved into other vowel qualities ( a : / e : / o : / i / u , etc . ) simply escapes me . pat ryan patrick c . ryan < proto-language @ worldnet . att . net > ( 501 ) 227-9947 ; fax / data ( 501 ) 312-9947 9115 w . 34th st . * little rock , ar 72204-4441 * usa webpage : < a href = " http : / / www . geocities . com / athens / forum / 2803 " > < / a > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ' veit ek , at ek hekk , vindga meidhi , naetr allar niu , geiri undadhr . . . a theim meidhi er mangi veit hvers hann af rotum renn . ' * ( havamal 138 ) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
