Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!news.ucdavis.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!sarima
From: sarima@netcom.com (Stanley Friesen)
Subject: Re: IndoEuropean 'r' and laryngeals
Message-ID: <sarimaD612xL.IJ5@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950321210317.16136K-100000@grad>
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 1995 03:27:21 GMT
Lines: 25
Sender: sarima@netcom4.netcom.com

In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.950321210317.16136K-100000@grad>,
Timothy Miller  <millert@csee.usf.edu> wrote:
>What was the Proto-IndoEuropean 'r'?
>
>The American Heritage dictionary says that it could act as a vowel, and 
>as a liquid.  How was it a liquid?  Something like the American 'r' seems 
>unlikely.  What was it really?

However, the American 'r' *does* act exactly like the reconstructed PIE
phoneme.  It even has a vocalic allophone! (The pronunciation of the
word spelled "bird" in my dialect has only three sounds - b-r-d).

>Could someone explain how schwa is related to a laryngeal?

The basic point is that laryngeals and pharyngeals are often
continuants, so shifting the vocalic nucleus to them is possible.
This leads to a vocalic allophone.  This sound is more of a creaky
voiced or murmured vowel than a modern schwa.  The most believable
reconstruction I have seen is a sort of breathy 'a' sound (with the
tongue *way* back) - an 'h' sound turned into a vowel.
-- 
NAMES: sarima@netcom.com swf@ElSegundoCA.attgis.com

May the peace of God be with you.

