No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Pa, Δeδae, Δaσυσ, and the Semivowels
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 April 2026
Abstract
Given the following groups of corresponding phonemes or phoneme sequences in Sanskrit, Greek, and Germanic: (1) v/ϝ/w, r/ρ/r, n/v/n, (2) u/v/u, r/ρa~aρ/ur, a/α/un, and (3) uv/v(ϝ)/(uw), ir(ur)/αρ/ur, an/av/un: the segments of sound lying behind group 1 were once in complementary distribution both with those behind group 2 and with those behind group 3. For the older stages of Indo-European, therefore, one needs to reconstruct only three entities: w, r, n (and likewise y, l, m for other sets not listed here), each with three positional variants of varying syllabicity. The argument has been most fully presented by Franklin Edgerton. In connection with that argument there has been some discussion whether the syllabic element in group 3 above should or should not be written ъ. Assuming for the moment that ъ has to be reconstructed in the neighborhood of stops to account for quattuor, πíσυρ∈s, and the like, the dilemma resembles that posed by the [k] of length in the description of some types of English : if we are impressed by its similarity to other [k]-like segments in environments where it is not automatically present, we say that there are some environments in which [k] is automatic but is phonemically /k/ nevertheless; but if we are more impressed by the automatic nature of its presence in length, we seize upon any phonetic detail that may distinguish this [k] from other [k]-like sounds elsewhere and see in the sequence [
] merely the allophone of /
/ before /θ/.2a If ъ is not recognized in quattuor, the problem hardly arises in the case of the nasals and liquids. For (i)y and (u)w it still exists, in a somewhat different form; but this question is here left out of account.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1953 Linguistic Society of America
References
1 Lg. 10.235-65,19.83-124. See also G. S. Lane, JEGP 50.522-8.
2 See E. H. Sturtevant, Lg. 19.293-312.
2a Or of /θ/ after /η/. It would still have to be shown in what sense the [k] of strength is more automatic than the weak-stressed vowel of (he) longeth or the like: both sounds occur between /η/ and /θ/ (and so do countless other sequences, especially longer ones); zero does not.
2b Somewhat differently Sturtevant, op.cit. 312.
3 Lg. 19.91.
4 ‘Pα and ‘p’ occur freely enough after long diphthongs.
5 Phonétique du grec ancien 285-6.
6 Hermes 21.563-9.
7 See E. Risch, Museum helveticum 6.244.
8 Verhandlungen d. Sächs. Ges. d. Wiss., Phil.-hist. Kl. 35.36-70.
9 See Brugmann himself, op.cit. 67.
10 The relation between semivowels and laryngeals needs more investigation. A laryngeal would have to be expected in čpa as well, especially if it belongs with άραρíσκω ‘join’ etc.; see Boisacq s.v. And see W. P. Lehmann, Lg. 27.13-7.
11 F. Edgerton, Lg. 19.83-124 passim. We use italics for a notation in which the allophones of the semivowels are distinguished, slant lines where they are not.
12 W. Schulze, Kleine Schriften 116-7. Πράσον ‘leek’ proves little for 
preceding s. Ernout-Meillet3 s.v. porrum consider it a Mediterranean loanword in both Greek and Latin.
13 Griechische Grammatik 1.307.
14 It is true that the reduplicated forms all come from the Odyssey.
15 Even advocates of ъ believe that ъ before y and w became respectively i and u; see Sturtevant, op.cit.
16 Lg. 10.264. Perhaps it should be pointed out that oure, being automatic, has nothing to do with similar notations used for a true reduced grade, where the location of the remnant vowel is determined by the location of the full-grade vowel in other forms of the paradigm. It is Edgerton's contention (and of course we agree) that such a true reduced vowel cannot be found in the neighborhood of semivowels. (See also J. Kurylowicz, Études indo-européennes 1.80-1 and 255-7.)
- 1
- Cited by