Re: Evidence for Nostratic? (was Re: Proto-Uralic?)

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:59:11 +0100, Joe <joe@...> wrote:

>The latter, incidentally, is H1ed(0-grade)+ont, which originally meant
>'eating', apparently.    Anyway, from what I've gathered, when *o is
>stressed in the stem, it turns to *e when unstressed, and vice-versa.
>Although I could be wrong.
I think a better original meaning for hed- (earlier *hád(a)-) is 'chew,'
not 'eat.'  Then, *hadánt(a)- 'chewing' became 'Western PIE' hdent-
 'chewer' > 'tooth,' 'Eastern PIE' hdont- 'chewer' > 'tooth.'

The question is, what can produce a system whereby the alternations é vs.
o, and ó vs. e, exist?  Assuming that you are correct, that is.
Personally, I think that there was, very early on, an East-West split
within PIE, whereby the Eastern branches (Greek, Indo-Aryan, etc.)
developed a tonal accent, and the Western branches did not.  This is just a
guess, though, based on what I know (which is certainly not much in the
grand scheme of PIE-ology).  If anyone has evidence that refutes my thesis,
bring it on. :)

- Rob