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

On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 13:55:40 -0600, Muke Tever <muke@...> wrote:

>From: "Joe" <joe@...>
>> So, um, why were laryngeals introduced?  Was it the inconsistencies in
>> Ablaut, or what?
>
>Actually, it was (AFAICT) to simplify the ablaut series...
>
>Where beforehand you have the main series:
>
>    e / o / 0
>
>And series with resonants:
>
>    ey / oy / i
>    ew / ow / u
>    er / or / r=
>
>(etc.)
>
>You also have "long vowel" series:
>
>    e: / o: / @
>    a: / o: / @
>    o: / o: / @
>
>These look weird compared to all the others.
>However if you propose that there are sounds there that we're just not
seeing,
>parallel to *y, *w, *r, etc., then you have:
>
>    e1 / o1 / 1=
>    e2 / o2 / 2=
>    e3 / o3 / 3=
>
>...which are perfectly normal members of the series.
I would present the last set, if it is correct, as:

    áh / ah / h
    áx / ax / x
  áxW / axW / xW

However, can you cite any examples of the "long vowel series" with a: vs.
o: and o: vs. o:?

- Rob

Reply