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

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.

For example, unless one already knows, how on earth can you tell that SVA
in SVADERE represented [swa:] (one syllable) while in SVARVM it
represented [sua:](two syllables)
. How do I know how to pronounce SOLVERE except by context, since it could
be:
/'solwere/ (3 syllables) pres. act. infinitive _or_ 2nd.sing. of pres.
passive indicative (4 syllables)
/sol'we:re/ (also 3 syllables) 2nd.sing. of future passive indicative  (4
syllables)
/solu'e:re/ (4 syllables) 3rd. plural of perfect active indicative (used
mainly in verse and by historians as alternative to the more prosaic
SOLVERVNT)

I can see no _rational_ way that Latin can be phonematized with [w] and [U]
(and [u:]?) being treated as allophonic variants. It would lead to the
formulation of a lot of "exceptions", which seems to me perverse.
Certainly, the ancients regarded the two sounds as essentially different
(see  Flavius Sosipater Charisius [grammarian, 4th cent CE] p. 57;
Diomedes [grammarian, 4th cent CE] p 416, 420; Priscianus [grammarian, 6th
cent CE] p.539, 542, 544 sqq.) and one of Claudius' proposed reforms was
the introduction of an inverted F to denote /w/. Regrettably Roman
conservatism proved too strong for this sensible reform to survive
Claudius' reign.

A better case can be made out for treating [j] and [i] as allophones, as
the occurrence of one or the other is predictable *as long as you readily
spot compound words* and are not baulked by such things as:
ABICERE [ab'jIkERE] and ADICERE [aj'jIkERE]. Again the ancients appear to
have regarded them as distinct sounds, tho Claudius didn't think it such a
problem as to warrant a new symbol.

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. 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.

Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com    (home)
raymond.brown@kingston-college.ac.uk   (work)
===============================================
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language."         J.G. Hamann, 1760

Replies