To be fair, that comment prompted me to check out the rest of the comment section. Pure comedy gold!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.
The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
- Sleinad Flar
- Lebom
- Posts: 124
- Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:18 pm
- Location: Coriovallum, Germania Inferior
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
"Was ist ist, was nicht ist ist möglich"
http://sleinadflar.deviantart.com
http://sleinadflar.deviantart.com
- WeepingElf
- Smeric
- Posts: 1630
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
- Location: Braunschweig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
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?
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
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
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:
- WeepingElf
- Smeric
- Posts: 1630
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
- Location: Braunschweig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
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?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.
...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
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
Well, the obvious answer would be "because it's unlikely that a number of branches innovated a feature the exact same way". Or something.WeepingElf wrote:Why can't it just have lost its rounding there?
JAL
- WeepingElf
- Smeric
- Posts: 1630
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
- Location: Braunschweig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
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.jal wrote:Well, the obvious answer would be "because it's unlikely that a number of branches innovated a feature the exact same way". Or something.WeepingElf wrote: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
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
- KathTheDragon
- Smeric
- Posts: 2139
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
- Location: Brittania
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
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)
- WeepingElf
- Smeric
- Posts: 1630
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
- Location: Braunschweig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
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.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)
...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
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
- 2+3 clusivity
- Avisaru
- Posts: 454
- Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:34 pm
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
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.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.
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.
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
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.
@ 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.
-
- Avisaru
- Posts: 734
- Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:47 pm
- Location: Leiden, the Netherlands
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
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/ ?
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/ ?
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
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?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'.
JAL
-
- Avisaru
- Posts: 734
- Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:47 pm
- Location: Leiden, the Netherlands
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
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.jal wrote: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?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'.
JAL
And I also expect to find said North-Germanic language experts here, or at least I hope so !
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
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.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.
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.And I also expect to find said North-Germanic language experts here, or at least I hope so !
JAL
-
- Avisaru
- Posts: 734
- Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:47 pm
- Location: Leiden, the Netherlands
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
Good lord, are you a moderator or something? I do hope not.jal wrote: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.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.
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.And I also expect to find said North-Germanic language experts here, or at least I hope so !
JAL
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.
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
He's not. He just totally lacks people skills.sirdanilot wrote:Good lord, are you a moderator or something? I do hope not.
For what it's worth, "Indo-Europeanist" is indeed the standard term for specialists in the fields of comparative IE linguistics.
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)
- 2+3 clusivity
- Avisaru
- Posts: 454
- Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:34 pm
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
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.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.
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.
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
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.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."
- 2+3 clusivity
- Avisaru
- Posts: 454
- Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:34 pm
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
"Three" appears in select Dardic Languages and Gandhari (In loosely orientalist transcription <y> = IPA /j/ and where the vowels are VERY tentative):
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)
Non-Pamir East Iranian:
Pamir East Iranian:
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!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/
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)
Compare also: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/
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:
"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):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)/
---
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):---
Thum.: /dre/
Khotanese: /drēa, dɾē, dɾeɳu, dɾyō/
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.
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
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/.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.
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.
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:But what about IE loanwords in Uralic such as *porćas <= PIE *porḱos 'pig' that show positive evidence of *o being rounded?
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).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.
…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.
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.WeepingElf wrote:While there is no positive evidence for *o never been rounded in any IE language.
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.
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.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.
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?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.
---
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]
- KathTheDragon
- Smeric
- Posts: 2139
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
- Location: Brittania
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
Apparently, PIE *o is reflected as e in (I think) Lycian, which is further evidence for an unrounded, maybe mid vowel.
- Salmoneus
- 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
Could it not equally have been /e/ that was once /a/?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.
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?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.
What do you mean by *a? Do you mean *h2e?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.
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).
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.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.
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.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).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.
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).
The second bit isn't unusual at all, I don't think.
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.
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!
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!
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
or a: > ɑː, o: > oa, followed by ɑː > o(:) and oa > a(:)
Slava, čĭstŭ, hrabrostĭ!
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
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 *ə?
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
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.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 *ə?