Research master thesis | Linguistics (research) (MA)
open access
The Proto-Indo-European long vowels *ē and *ō occupy a remarkable position within the phonemic system. Although these vowels are phonemic, they are limited to very specific morphological categories...Show moreThe Proto-Indo-European long vowels *ē and *ō occupy a remarkable position within the phonemic system. Although these vowels are phonemic, they are limited to very specific morphological categories. This distribution has been explained by several theories, of which there are three which propose a phonetic origin for these long vowels and that nowadays find supported by various scholars, viz. Wackernagel’s lengthening in monosyllables, Szemerényi’s Law, and Kortlandt’s lengthening before word-final resonant. These three theories have in common that they derive the long vowels from their short counterparts *e and *o, whereas they differ from each other in the phonological environments under which the short vowels would have become long. It is, however, still controversial which theory is the most likely to be correct, since all theories have counterexamples. This thesis examines the question which of the three phonetic theories on the origin of the Proto-Indo-European lengthened grade can be proven correct or incorrect. This question will be addressed by discussing the evidence and counterevidence of the nominal system and comparing the counterexamples to the three theories. By attempting to provide alternative explanations for the counterevidence, as well as discussing the strengths and weaknesses of existing alternative explanations, it is possible to examine which theory or theories can be kept up and which one(s) must be rejected. It will be concluded, that monosyllabic lengthening probably works for the nominal system, that Kortlandt’s lengthening before word-final resonant can only work when it is reformulated(i.e. leaving out the nasals as a conditional factor), and that Szemerényi’s Law is best to be given up.Show less
A discussion on the subgrouping of the three Celtic languages or language groups Gaulish, Brythonic and Goidelic. The central question in this thesis is whether there is a closer genetic...Show moreA discussion on the subgrouping of the three Celtic languages or language groups Gaulish, Brythonic and Goidelic. The central question in this thesis is whether there is a closer genetic relationship between Gaulish and Brythonic (the Gallo-Brythonic hypothesis), or between Goidelic and Brythonic (the Insular Celtic hypothesis). The thesis discusses the validity of the arguments put forward in the relevant literature supporting either hypothesis.Show less
Proto-Indo-European root morphemes are characterised by co-occurrence constraints on stops, namely **TVT-, **C1VC1-, **DVD- and **TVDh. The traditional reconstruction and historical-linguistic...Show moreProto-Indo-European root morphemes are characterised by co-occurrence constraints on stops, namely **TVT-, **C1VC1-, **DVD- and **TVDh. The traditional reconstruction and historical-linguistic theories aiming to explain the root restrictions from historical-linguistic perspective are critically reviewed. Typology classifies the Proto-Indo-European root restrictions as absolute, static co-occurrence restrictions. **TVT and **C1VC1 are co-occurrence restrictions on place of articulation, whereas **DVD and **TVDh are co-occurrence restrictions on laryngeal features. The application of existing phonological theories shows that **TVT and **C1VC1 can be explained by the Obligatory Contour Principle. A model in Dispersion Theory explains **DVD as a dissimilatory constraint and **TVDh as the consequence of an assimilatory constraint on *Dh.Show less
