Re: The Monovocalic PIE Myth (was Germans have no /w/, ...)

Hallo!

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 20:44:03 +0100,
Ray Brown <ray.brown@...> wrote:

> On Tuesday, June 8, 2004, at 11:28 , Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
>
> > Hallo!
> >
> > On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 17:39:29 -0400,
> > Roger Mills <rfmilly@...> wrote:
> >
> >> This matter is being discussed on Cybalist at the moment!! For IE it
> >> seems
> >> to require a big stretch.  But one writer has posted a very convincing
> >> argument for Sanskrit as monovocalic. See msg. 33008 in the yahoogroup
> >> archive for a text in the 1-vowel system.
> >
> > Well, it is a matter of definition whether, in a language like Sanskrit
> > or Latin, one defines [i] and [u] as syllabic allophones of /j/ and /w/,
> > or conversely [j] and [w] as non-syllabic allophones of /i/ and /u/.
>
> Whaaat???
>
> I can't speak for Sanskrit, but it ain't so for Latin, especially with
> regard to /w/ and /u/ ~ /u:/. It is simply _not_ predictable when the V in
> the combo V+vowel is a consonant or a vowel, i.e. [w] and [u] are simply
> not in complementary distribution.
>
> [arguments for treating Latin /w/ and /j/ as separate phonemes
   from /u/ and /i/]
>
> IMO treating Latin /j/ and /i/ as distinct phonemes makes for a more
> straightforward analysis; analyzing them as allophones seems to me rather
> similar to analyzing English [w] and [U] as allophones of a single phoneme
> which, when initial, is realized as [wU] in standard English (both Brit &
> 'Merkan) or as [U] in some rural dialects. It's possible - but most
> consider it more satisfactory to posit two English phonemes /w/ and /U/.
> Similar consideration, I think, apply to Latin [j], [jI], [I].
>
> All the credible descriptions of Latin that I have come across have,
> correctly IMO, treated /j/, /i/, /w/ and /u/ as four distinct phonemes.
I whole-heartedly agree to you.  It makes more sense than positing
just two phonemes /i ~ j/ and /u ~ w/.  There cannot be any doubt
that /i/ and /u/ are full-blown vowel phonemes in Latin, and I think
they are also in Sanskrit and PIE.  Thank you, Ray, for clearly
debunking the "no high vowel phonemes" myth for Latin.

>       As
> far as I was aware, the only point of argument was whether Classical Latin
> had 10 vowel phonemes, i.e. /i/, /i:/, /e/, /e:/, /a/, /a:/, /o/, /o:/, /u/
> , /u:/, or merely 6 vowel phonemes: /i/, /e/, /a/, /o/, /u/ and /:/.
> Alternatively, I guess you could reasonably regard the long vowels as
> being /ii/, /ee/. /aa/ etc.; indeed, they were occasionally written that
> way by the ancients.
Yes.

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 07:15:27 +0100,
Joe <joe@...> wrote:

> I find a two-vowel hypothesis more likely.  That is *a and *e(No doubt
> not the actual pronounciations.  I suspect *e* is actually a schwa). *i
> and *u, I believe, have evolved from *ej and *ew.
*Some* cases of *i and *u may be from such diphthongs, but not *all*
of them; my position is that there have *always* been /i/ and /u/
in (Pre-)PIE.

>       A two vowel system
> seems to be consistent, vaguely, with the facts, and I agree that
> high-grade *e>*e, low grade *e>*o or >0.
I don't see what can be explained by positing /a/ and /@/.
In which way does the difference between these two vowels manifest
in PIE?

>       Incidentally, has anyone
> noticed the huge parallels between Indo-European stops(of the Glottalic
> theory) and those of Abkhaz. (Ejectives,  Labialised Consonants,
> Palatalised Consonants, Plain Unvoiced, Plain Voiced).  If a two vowel
> hypothesis was true, this would also suggest links, as the Abkahaz
> closed vowel has huge allophony, but remains one vowel, just as the
> hypothetical vowel I proposed did.
I am no expert on Abkhaz, but as far as I know, its analysis as
having just two vowel phonemes is controversial.

Greetings,

Jörg.

Reply