The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread

Discussion of natural languages, or language in general.
User avatar
Sleinad Flar
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:18 pm
Location: Coriovallum, Germania Inferior

Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread

Post by Sleinad Flar »

CatDoom wrote:What I find even more vexing is that one of the four user comments on the AH article that's singled out as a "New York Times Pick" is from one "Turkoglu," who asserts that "Anatolia" is a recent term and that the whole region should be called the "Armenian Highlands," that Armenian is Proto-Indo-European, and that Basques are Armenian and the Basque language is a dialect of Armenian because the two languages supposedly share a (staggering!) 600 words in common.
To be fair, that comment prompted me to check out the rest of the comment section. Pure comedy gold!
"Was ist ist, was nicht ist ist möglich"
http://sleinadflar.deviantart.com

User avatar
WeepingElf
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1630
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
Location: Braunschweig, Germany
Contact:

Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread

Post by WeepingElf »

To get back to the topic:

Some people here have uttered doubt against PIE *o actually having been rounded. But what about IE loanwords in Uralic such as *porćas <= PIE *porḱos 'pig' that show positive evidence of *o being rounded?
...brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A

User avatar
Pabappa
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:51 pm
Location: the Peyron Apartments
Contact:

Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread

Post by Pabappa »

They wouldnt be borrowed from PIE, but rather an early satem language or possibly even as late as Proto-Slavic. After all, there is a ć in there, not a k, and Uralic didn't palatalize /k/, so only those who believe that PIE had a true palatal series would say that that word was from PIE. Also there is evidence that there once existed satem branches of PIE that died out, therefore there is no need for *porćas to have been an exact match to any modern satem protolanguage.
And now Sunàqʷa the Sea Lamprey with our weather report:
Image

User avatar
WeepingElf
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1630
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
Location: Braunschweig, Germany
Contact:

Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread

Post by WeepingElf »

Publipis wrote:They wouldnt be borrowed from PIE, but rather an early satem language or possibly even as late as Proto-Slavic. After all, there is a ć in there, not a k, and Uralic didn't palatalize /k/, so only those who believe that PIE had a true palatal series would say that that word was from PIE. Also there is evidence that there once existed satem branches of PIE that died out, therefore there is no need for *porćas to have been an exact match to any modern satem protolanguage.
Indeed, it is obviously from an early satem language, perhaps from a now lost one that developed in the eastern recesses of the Corded Ware horizon near the Volga river. (Tropylium and I have recently begun to develop a "Volga IE" conlang based on this notion.) But this language would have had a rounded *o, thus throwing a monkey-wrench into the idea of those who argue that rounded *o was an innovation of a southwestern (Italo-Celtic and Greek-Armenian) dialect area in Late PIE. I am not aware of any positive evidence for PIE *o being unrounded; the whole debate seems to be exclusively based on ex negativo arguments based on how PIE *o merged with *a in Germanic, Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian. Why can't it just have lost its rounding there?
...brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A

User avatar
jal
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 2633
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:03 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread

Post by jal »

WeepingElf wrote:Why can't it just have lost its rounding there?
Well, the obvious answer would be "because it's unlikely that a number of branches innovated a feature the exact same way". Or something.


JAL

User avatar
WeepingElf
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1630
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
Location: Braunschweig, Germany
Contact:

Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread

Post by WeepingElf »

jal wrote:
WeepingElf wrote:Why can't it just have lost its rounding there?
Well, the obvious answer would be "because it's unlikely that a number of branches innovated a feature the exact same way". Or something.
How convincing ;) The same problem occurs when one assumes that those branches that show rounded reflexes of PIE *o have innovated that feature. The *a/*o merger of the Germanic/Balto-Slavic area perhaps was a change separate from the *e/*a/*o merger in Indo-Iranian.
...brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A

User avatar
KathTheDragon
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 2139
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
Location: Brittania

Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread

Post by KathTheDragon »

Well, given a back vowel set of /ɑ ʌ u/, the most natural thing is to round /ʌ/, or merge it with /ɑ/. So, I don't think there's any real reason for a rounded *o over an unrounded *o (or vice versa), and IMO, it's a matter of personal taste (and probably what prehistory you subscribe to)

User avatar
WeepingElf
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1630
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
Location: Braunschweig, Germany
Contact:

Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread

Post by WeepingElf »

KathAveara wrote:Well, given a back vowel set of /ɑ ʌ u/, the most natural thing is to round /ʌ/, or merge it with /ɑ/. So, I don't think there's any real reason for a rounded *o over an unrounded *o (or vice versa), and IMO, it's a matter of personal taste (and probably what prehistory you subscribe to)
Fair. My point was that there is positive evidence for rounded *o in the middle of the IE dialect area where *o has merged with *a. While there is no positive evidence for *o never been rounded in any IE language. But we indeed just don't know.
...brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A

User avatar
2+3 clusivity
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 454
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:34 pm

Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread

Post by 2+3 clusivity »

WeepingElf wrote: How convincing ;) The same problem occurs when one assumes that those branches that show rounded reflexes of PIE *o have innovated that feature. The *a/*o merger of the Germanic/Balto-Slavic area perhaps was a change separate from the *e/*a/*o merger in Indo-Iranian.
The more research I do, the less convinced I am of the generality of IIr. merging *e and *o solely (and most especially the V of *Vi, *Vu) into *a. *o or some underlying rounded back vowel seems likely.

Older languages seem to over-sample a shift of /o/ to /a/; on the other hand, almost all languages ancient and modern agree with a shift of /*e/ to /a/. Sanskrit appears to shift these to /a/ pretty generally -- with possible nominative masculine singular exceptions; Pali does less so. Young and old Avestan make the shift to varying degrees, but less so with *Vi and *Vu if current transcriptions are accurate. Old Persian's writing system does not differentiate <Ca> from <Co>. Finally, looking at other modern niece and nephew IIr. languages, one finds significant oddities in /o/. A good example is the prevalence of "eight" starting with /o-/ or /wV-/ in various languages and branches of the family. Check, zomp's (not very well transliterated) number page for examples across multiple branches of IIr. -- Sorry Mark.

I agree with weeping, innovation seems odd. Given the above at least for IIr., origin v. innovation seems to fit the ticket better.
linguoboy wrote:So that's what it looks like when the master satirist is moistened by his own moutarde.

hwhatting
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 2315
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2002 2:49 am
Location: Bonn, Germany

Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread

Post by hwhatting »

In any case, /a/ > /o/ and /o/ > /a/ are really trivial sound changes. E.g., whatever you asume for PIE, Slavic has seen it going both ways - if you assume PIE /o/, it Looks like /o/ > Balto-Slavic /a/ > Slavic /o/ > Russian /a/ (in unstressed syllables); if you'd assume PIE /a/ (or something like that), you'd only lose the first step. The important point is the merger of two phonemes, not the exact articulation.
@ 2+3: Having that in mind, are you saying that the languages you name (1) didn't merge /a/ and /o/ in all positions, or that (2) the phonems merged, but that the outcome could sometimes be [o] depending on position? (1) would be a more significant outcome than (2), because (1) would mean that some IIr. languages maintained them as separate phonemes.

sirdanilot
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 734
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:47 pm
Location: Leiden, the Netherlands

Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread

Post by sirdanilot »

A question that no indo-europeanist I know has been able to adequately explain to me.

Where does /tɬ/ in Icelandic come from? When I ask this, people say 'yeah from *tl clusters'. That is a stupid answer though, as these clusters occur in words that historically do not have a t in that position. So the t has been magically inserted before /l/, then that changed to /tɬ/. But where does the /t/ come from in this scenario?

Another explanation is word-final l becoming voiceless, then /tɬ/. But that also gives two questions: 1. Then where does /tɬ/ in intervocalic position come from and 2. why is it not /ɬ/ ?

User avatar
jal
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 2633
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:03 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread

Post by jal »

sirdanilot wrote:A question that no indo-europeanist I know has been able to adequately explain to me. Where does /tɬ/ in Icelandic come from? When I ask this, people say 'yeah from *tl clusters'.
I'm not sure what you mean by "indo-europeanist" (this is a *Proto* IE thread), but that question is probably better asked to, say, someone knowledgeable with the North Germanic languages and their development?


JAL

sirdanilot
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 734
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:47 pm
Location: Leiden, the Netherlands

Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread

Post by sirdanilot »

jal wrote:
sirdanilot wrote:A question that no indo-europeanist I know has been able to adequately explain to me. Where does /tɬ/ in Icelandic come from? When I ask this, people say 'yeah from *tl clusters'.
I'm not sure what you mean by "indo-europeanist" (this is a *Proto* IE thread), but that question is probably better asked to, say, someone knowledgeable with the North Germanic languages and their development?


JAL
I am pretty sure you know exactly what I mean with the term 'indo-europeanist'; someone who is well versed in the field of Comparative Indo-European Linguistics.
And I also expect to find said North-Germanic language experts here, or at least I hope so !

User avatar
jal
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 2633
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:03 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread

Post by jal »

sirdanilot wrote:I am pretty sure you know exactly what I mean with the term 'indo-europeanist'; someone who is well versed in the field of Comparative Indo-European Linguistics.
I'm not sure they exist, taking into account modern languages. Really, your question is probably about a semi-recent development (if it's not a retention of something lost in all other branches), and has no place here. This thread is for discussing PIE.
And I also expect to find said North-Germanic language experts here, or at least I hope so !
You'll probably find a lot of gay men here as well. That doesn't mean this thread is the place to ask them questions about being gay. I suggest you take your question to a new thread in L&L.


JAL

sirdanilot
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 734
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:47 pm
Location: Leiden, the Netherlands

Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread

Post by sirdanilot »

jal wrote:
sirdanilot wrote:I am pretty sure you know exactly what I mean with the term 'indo-europeanist'; someone who is well versed in the field of Comparative Indo-European Linguistics.
I'm not sure they exist, taking into account modern languages. Really, your question is probably about a semi-recent development (if it's not a retention of something lost in all other branches), and has no place here. This thread is for discussing PIE.
And I also expect to find said North-Germanic language experts here, or at least I hope so !
You'll probably find a lot of gay men here as well. That doesn't mean this thread is the place to ask them questions about being gay. I suggest you take your question to a new thread in L&L.


JAL
Good lord, are you a moderator or something? I do hope not.

I am asking about a historical sound change in an indo-european language. One that happens to be quite conservative too. I happen to know that many people following comparative indo-european courses here at the university have also followed (old) icelandic, for example. So why would it be such a strange question to ask here?

But if it really makes you so happy, I'll open a new thread about it. Yippee, let's celebrate, you won.

User avatar
Dewrad
Sanno
Sanno
Posts: 1040
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 9:02 pm

Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread

Post by Dewrad »

sirdanilot wrote:Good lord, are you a moderator or something? I do hope not.
He's not. He just totally lacks people skills.

For what it's worth, "Indo-Europeanist" is indeed the standard term for specialists in the fields of comparative IE linguistics.
Some useful Dravian links: Grammar - Lexicon - Ask a Dravian
Salmoneus wrote:(NB Dewrad is behaving like an adult - a petty, sarcastic and uncharitable adult, admittedly, but none the less note the infinitely higher quality of flame)

User avatar
2+3 clusivity
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 454
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:34 pm

Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread

Post by 2+3 clusivity »

hwhatting wrote:@ 2+3: Having that in mind, are you saying that the languages you name (1) didn't merge /a/ and /o/ in all positions, or that (2) the phonems merged, but that the outcome could sometimes be [o] depending on position? (1) would be a more significant outcome than (2), because (1) would mean that some IIr. languages maintained them as separate phonemes.
Good question. I am amidst (admidst?) moving following a job change. I'll follow up with a language by language analysis when I have more time.

Also, various Dardic/New-Indo-Aryan-Languages have lateral alveolar affricatives in place of prior /tr-/. It's very common for "three." Several regional languages also have other extreme shifts such as: /d-/ -> /l-/ or /0-/, as seen in "two."
linguoboy wrote:So that's what it looks like when the master satirist is moistened by his own moutarde.

CatDoom
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 739
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 1:12 am

Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread

Post by CatDoom »

2+3 clusivity wrote:Also, various Dardic/New-Indo-Aryan-Languages have lateral alveolar affricatives in place of prior /tr-/. It's very common for "three." Several regional languages also have other extreme shifts such as: /d-/ -> /l-/ or /0-/, as seen in "two."
Well, the latter makes some sense, since the Indo-Iranian lost most instances of *l early on and there presumably would have been some areal pressure to re-create it. I'd never heard of lateral affricates in Indo-Aryan though; makes me wonder if Old Persian <ç>, which came from Proto-Iranian *θr and turned into Middle Persian [s] might have been something similar.

User avatar
2+3 clusivity
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 454
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:34 pm

Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread

Post by 2+3 clusivity »

"Three" appears in select Dardic Languages and Gandhari (In loosely orientalist transcription <y> = IPA /j/ and where the vowels are VERY tentative):
Gandhari: /m Nom. traje, Inst&gen tri-/
---
Tirahi: /tre/
---
W. Paʃaí: /trɛ, tra/
E. Paʃaí: /ɬé, ?ɬ̢é/
---
ʃumaʃti: /ɬyē, ɬīē, ?ɬ̢yē, ?ɬ̢īē/
Grangali, etc.; / ɬe, ?ɬ̢e/
Gawar-bati: / ɬe, ɬɛ, ?ɬ̢e, ?ɬ̢ɛ,/
---
Kalaʃa: /tre/
Kʰowar: Nom. /tròy/ Obl. /troy-ín/
---
Katar-qalai /ʈā, ɬ̢ā/
Damia: /traa/
Dir-Kohistani:
Kalam-Kohistani: /ɬa, ɬɑ̄/
Bashkarkik: /ʈʰā/
Torwali: /ʈʂa/
Indus Kohistani (Maiya): /tʃā/
Indus Kohistani (Kan.): /ʈʂā/
Gowro:
Chilisso:
Bhatesa:
---
Palula: /tróo/
Achareta: Nom /trṓ/, Obl. /trayím/
Various Shina:
---
Kashmiri: /tre/
The groups with lateral fricatives also show affricates depending on the fieldwork/description -- I also suspect older fieldwork favors affricatives, which might suggest a recent change. Some of the descriptions suggest the lateral fricatives might be retroflex -- odd stuff!

C.f. northern non-dardic Indo-Aryan languages (Vedic/Sanskrit was probably northern v. Pali which was based on a sibling of Vedic/non-literary Sanskrit)
Sanskrit: /M. tráyas, N. trī́, F. tisrás/
---
Gujari:/tra/
Hindko: /tre/
---
Sindʱi: /ʈrē, ?ʈī/
---
W. Pahaɽi Kangri: /tɾæ, obl tɪnnã/
W. Pahaɽi Dogri: /tɾæ, obl tɾəũ/
Compare also:

Non-Pamir East Iranian:
OAv.: ?
YAv.: /M. θrāi(y)ō, N.: θrī, F.: tiʃrō/
---
Khwarezmian: /?ʃe/ <ʃy>
---
Sogdian: /əθrē, ʃē/
---
Bact.: ?
---
Pashto: /drē/
---
Paraci: /ʃī/
Ormuri: Log. /ʃo/,
Ormuri: Kan. /r̥V/

Pamir East Iranian:
Munji: /ʃerai/
Idga: /ʃuroi/
---
Iʃkɒʃmi: X. /ɾɔi/, B. /ɾui/, Z/ɾoi/
Sanglechi: D. /ɾoi/, E. /ɾói/, F. /ɾɔi/
---
ʃuɣni: /aray/
ʃuɣni of Nawadak; /áɾai/
Rushani of Rubat: /áɾai/
Rushani of Jawed: /áɾai/
Rushani of Chasnud: /áɾai/
Yazghulami: //
Sarikoli: /haroi/
---
Waxi: /tru(y)/
---
"East Iranian" Saka (which I strongly suspect should be in its own grouping within Indo-Aryan like Nuristani, which itself needs to be subdivided into Nuristani and Prasun/Vashi):
---
Thum.: /dre/
Khotanese: /drēa, dɾē, dɾeɳu, dɾyō/
Nuristani and Vashi (the latter of which is a fascinating language (dialect cluster?), among other things, it appears to have prefixing directional markers on verbs, proclitic pronouns and (!?) rounded/unrounded vowel harmony):
Vɒʃi of Saitsi: /tsʃī, tʃī/
Vɒʃi of Uʂüt: /tsʃī/
---
W. Kata: /tré/
kɒm: /tré/
---
Ashkun: /trá/
W.: /tré/
linguoboy wrote:So that's what it looks like when the master satirist is moistened by his own moutarde.

User avatar
Tropylium
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 512
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 1:13 pm
Location: Halfway to Hyperborea

Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread

Post by Tropylium »

WeepingElf wrote:I am not aware of any positive evidence for PIE *o being unrounded; the whole debate seems to be exclusively based on ex negativo arguments based on how PIE *o merged with *a in Germanic, Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian.
This subtopic seems to have gone thru a broken telephone somewhere in here… I don't recall anyone having argued specifially for an unrounded *o and nothing else (i.e. for KathAveara's *a = /ɑ/, *o = /ʌ/). The version of the idea I've considered worth detailed investigation, based on several previous models of early or pre-PIE vocalism, is at its simplest that *o was an open vowel, while *a was not. This is of course further enhanced if *o could be suspected to have been also unrounded, i.e. /ɑ/, which is somewhat more common than /ɒ/.

The main improvements I see this bringing are:
1. It explains the typologically off-balance vowel system in traditional PIE, where open *a is very rare. I think it's quite widely accepted that *o must have been somewhere around /ɑ/ in at least some pre-PIE period.
2. It explains Brugmann's Law. In languages where particular vowels unconditionally gain length, this always proceeds starting from the tensest vowels in the system, which normally are the open (and non-reduced) vowels.
3. The area where PIE *o surfaces as /a/ is much more geographically scattered than the one where it surfaces as /o/.
4. If trad. *a is instead reconstructed as a non-open vowel such as /ʌ/ or /ɜ/, then its merger into /a/ can be equated with the widespread resolution of syllabic laryngeals and resonants as *a(R), and no separate vowel lowering needs to be assumed.

The possible rounding argument has further implications for laryngeal theory etc. but those are not core evidence.
WeepingElf wrote:But what about IE loanwords in Uralic such as *porćas <= PIE *porḱos 'pig' that show positive evidence of *o being rounded?
Indeed, this seems like a problem. Though I don't think the Uralic evidence unambiguously points to *o. The "pork" word has three reflexes: Finnic *porsas; Mordvinic *purćəs; Permic *pårś. The consonant skeletons in these do not quite match. If we assume that there were two loans, then *porćas versus *porśas might do. However it's been recently found out that also *parćəs (or, in traditional vowel notation *parćes or *parćis) would produce /u-ə/ in Mordvinic. There is evidence that the shift in some limited amount of environments occurred in Finnic as well; if this included after *p, then we'd be in the clear. Another option might be loaning from early Mordvinic.
WeepingElf wrote: My point was that there is positive evidence for rounded *o in the middle of the IE dialect area where *o has merged with *a.
FWIW we just as well also "have positive evidence" that PIE *r̥ (!) was a rounded vowel, given e.g. Northern Sami /tʃoarvi/, Erzya /sʲuro/, Mari /ʃur/, Udmurt and Komi /ɕur/ 'horn' (all from PII *śr̥wa).
…But the same recently found soundlaw that might allow reconstructing *parćəs also allows reconstructing in this case Finno-Permic *śarwə and not, as traditional, *śorwa.
WeepingElf wrote:While there is no positive evidence for *o never been rounded in any IE language.
Of course there is positive evidence. The probably most widespread reflex /a/ is precisely unrounded. It is just not especially strong evidence, since this reflex is generally analyzed as a merger of *a and *o, one of them rounded and the other unrounded. — But see below for Tocharian, where *o both remains separate from *a and normally surfaces unrounded.

And of course, you can claim that this is still not evidence that rounding could not have been previously present. But just as well, I could claim that the presence of rounding in the southern belt of Celtic thru Armenian is not evidence that it couldn't have been previously absent. Nothing is ever evidence for the complete impossibility of a thing.
2+3 clusivity wrote:Finally, looking at other modern niece and nephew IIr. languages, one finds significant oddities in /o/. A good example is the prevalence of "eight" starting with /o-/ or /wV-/ in various languages and branches of the family.
I don't think this shows anything though, given that these languages tend to have /(w)o-/ or the like just as well in "seven", which never had PIE *o. The idea of the e/a/o merger not having been completed everywhere in Indo-Iranian is intriguing but would require some fairly systematic evidence.
hwhatting wrote:In any case, /a/ > /o/ and /o/ > /a/ are really trivial sound changes. E.g., whatever you asume for PIE, Slavic has seen it going both ways - if you assume PIE /o/, it Looks like /o/ > Balto-Slavic /a/ > Slavic /o/ > Russian /a/ (in unstressed syllables); if you'd assume PIE /a/ (or something like that), you'd only lose the first step. The important point is the merger of two phonemes, not the exact articulation.
The other important point is that we're talking about an unconditional change. It's still not rare, but hardly "trivial" (in the same way e.g. /kʲ/ > /tʃ/ is). How many Romance languages or dialects shift *a > *o unconditionally? How many Germanic ones do? How many Turkic or Semitic or Bantu or Oceanic varieties? I know that more than zero do — but do more than 10%, 20% of any other clear family unit out there?

---

Tocharian, incidentally, does something quite weird with PIE *o and *a:
• short *a > *a
• short *o > *e (via *ɵ? merges with *ē > *ʲe)
• long *ā > *o (likely via *oː)
• long *ō > *a (via ??)
The last pair of developments in particular looks very strange, and some kind of a contrived roundabout would have to be assumed. The second is a bit unusual as well.

Under the "reversed" vocalism model, something like this could be assumed instead:
• short *ɜ > *a
• short *ɑ > *e (via *æ; no loss of rounding needs to be posited)
• long *ɜː > *o (via *ɔː; no lowering needs to be posited)
• long *ɑː > *a (no height changes need to be posited)
So the addition of the sound change *ɜ > *a pays off: all three other vowels' development can be traced with fewer assumptions.
[ˌʔaɪsəˈpʰɻ̊ʷoʊpɪɫ ˈʔæɫkəɦɔɫ]

User avatar
KathTheDragon
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 2139
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
Location: Brittania

Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread

Post by KathTheDragon »

Apparently, PIE *o is reflected as e in (I think) Lycian, which is further evidence for an unrounded, maybe mid vowel.

User avatar
Salmoneus
Sanno
Sanno
Posts: 3197
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: One of the dark places of the world

Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread

Post by Salmoneus »

Tropylium wrote: The main improvements I see this bringing are:
1. It explains the typologically off-balance vowel system in traditional PIE, where open *a is very rare. I think it's quite widely accepted that *o must have been somewhere around /ɑ/ in at least some pre-PIE period.
Could it not equally have been /e/ that was once /a/?
2. It explains Brugmann's Law. In languages where particular vowels unconditionally gain length, this always proceeds starting from the tensest vowels in the system, which normally are the open (and non-reduced) vowels.
Why does that need to be explained? /o/ > either /a/ or /a:/. Your typological argument assumes (for the o-theories) /o/ > /a:/, and then presumably /o/ > /a/ as an independent unrelated change wherever the first one doesn't happen. Wouldn't it be just as likely, though, for unconditional /o/ > /a/, and then /a/ > /a:/ in certain circumstances? That is, fine, the lengthening is more likely to happen when it was /a/ - but how does that tell us that it STARTED as /a/ rather than just becoming /a/? After all, we know it either became or started as /a/ already, so what does this argument add?
4. If trad. *a is instead reconstructed as a non-open vowel such as /ʌ/ or /ɜ/, then its merger into /a/ can be equated with the widespread resolution of syllabic laryngeals and resonants as *a(R), and no separate vowel lowering needs to be assumed.
What do you mean by *a? Do you mean *h2e?
Anyway, I'm not sure I follow this bit. Syllabic laryngeals and resonants presumably resolved as *(R)@(R). That schwa then merged with /a/ in some languages, but with other vowels in other languages, and in some languages was coloured by the surrounding consonants first. If you're saying that the resolant of syllabics merged with *h2e before the latter lowered to /a/, that leaves you with all the non-/a/ resolutions to explain (and if you aren't, then I don't follow what you're gaining from this explanation).
Indeed, this seems like a problem. Though I don't think the Uralic evidence unambiguously points to *o. The "pork" word has three reflexes: Finnic *porsas; Mordvinic *purćəs; Permic *pårś. The consonant skeletons in these do not quite match. If we assume that there were two loans, then *porćas versus *porśas might do. However it's been recently found out that also *parćəs (or, in traditional vowel notation *parćes or *parćis) would produce /u-ə/ in Mordvinic. There is evidence that the shift in some limited amount of environments occurred in Finnic as well; if this included after *p, then we'd be in the clear. Another option might be loaning from early Mordvinic.
When you've got evidence on one side of the argument and no evidence on the other, it seems tendentious to re-write the existing evidence by developing theories <i>in another field</i>, the field of another language family, just to make it easier to keep on holding the theory there's no direct evidence for. It could be right, sure, but then lots of things could be right.
WeepingElf wrote: My point was that there is positive evidence for rounded *o in the middle of the IE dialect area where *o has merged with *a.
FWIW we just as well also "have positive evidence" that PIE *r̥ (!) was a rounded vowel, given e.g. Northern Sami /tʃoarvi/, Erzya /sʲuro/, Mari /ʃur/, Udmurt and Komi /ɕur/ 'horn' (all from PII *śr̥wa).
Is that a surprise, though? After all, syllabic /r/ DID produce rounded vowels in several known surviving IE language families. Eg. from the same root as your PII, we get Latin cornu. And in Germanic, English horn and Dutch rund, although I don't know the processes in those cases. Similarly Latin corpus, etc.
So I don't think anyone would be surprised by Uralic loaning from a dialect where syllabic /r/ was rounded (or had a preceding rounded epenthetic vowel).

Tocharian, incidentally, does something quite weird with PIE *o and *a:
• short *a > *a
• short *o > *e (via *ɵ? merges with *ē > *ʲe)
• long *ā > *o (likely via *oː)
• long *ō > *a (via ??)
The last pair of developments in particular looks very strange, and some kind of a contrived roundabout would have to be assumed. The second is a bit unusual as well.
The second bit isn't unusual at all, I don't think.

It all looks reasonably straightforward, no roundabout needed. /o/ fronts, leaving a short gap at the back. /a:/ shortens and raises to fill that gap by becoming /o/. This leaves a long mid-open back vowel but no long open back vowel, so /o:/ lowers to /a:/. Length is lost, giving a merger of /a:/ to /a/. All four of these stages seem perfectly ordinary to me. The last two have occured in much of American English, for instance.
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]

But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!

User avatar
R.Rusanov
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 393
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 1:59 pm
Location: Novo-je Orĭlovo

Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread

Post by R.Rusanov »

or a: > ɑː, o: > oa, followed by ɑː > o(:) and oa > a(:)
Slava, čĭstŭ, hrabrostĭ!

TaylorS
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 557
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 1:44 pm
Location: Moorhead, MN, USA

Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread

Post by TaylorS »

Wait a sec, I thought most Indo-Europeanists now think that *a was just an allophone of *e when adjacent to *h2 and the back velars? And that *o goes back to an earlier *a and *e goes back to an earlier ?

hwhatting
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 2315
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2002 2:49 am
Location: Bonn, Germany

Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread

Post by hwhatting »

TaylorS wrote:Wait a sec, I thought most Indo-Europeanists now think that *a was just an allophone of *e when adjacent to *h2 and the back velars? And that *o goes back to an earlier *a and *e goes back to an earlier ?
There's a lot who believe that *a was just an allophone of *e, but I don't know how many believe the rest of what you wrote.

Post Reply