Editor for this issue: <>
To Nathan: I can't be of any direct help, but you might try contacting my colleague Nancy Stenson at stensonMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuevx.acs.umn.edu; she is up on things Celtic and might have info of the kind you're seeking.
To Mark Turner, re "mother of": It's an interesting locution, but it means something else in Islam, according to NPR, which had a piece explaining it the other day. It seems it means, essentially, "big". So, e.g, there can be more than one "mother of battles". (Notice that no one calls any of these things a "big mother". Carol GeorgopoulosMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
I enjoyed Mark Turner's posting on the expression 'mother of', but I couldn't help wondering if his interpretation would be equally appropriate in Iraqi culture. I'm referring specifically to his suggestion that 'The mother of all battles is pure of stock, more clearly a battle than any other.' I know little about Arabic, but in various Australian Aboriginal languages 'mother of' could mean little more than 'big' - e.g. the thumb may be called the mother of the hand. I took Saddam's 'mother of all battles' to mean that it was just going to be one huge battle, not that it would somehow be an especially definitive battle proto- typically. Paul Black / black_pdMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuedarwin.ntu.edu.au / Northern Territory University
Re Kamprath's search for unstressed v-systems with > 1 unstressed vowel, I don't understand his dismissal of English. Apart from the fact that he can't have looked at all the forms of English around, there are many standard forms of English with contrasts among the unstressed vowels. "accept" and "except" contrast in RP phonologically between a schwa and an [I]. In my English the contrast is phonetically between a retracted [E] and a sound close to that symbolised in the IPA by an inverted "a". Norval SmithMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Hello, You may want to look at some Uto-Aztecan languages. In Luiseno, the case I can describe most clearly, the answers to your grammatical questions are 3 a, b, f no 3 c stress 4 yes, many (deletion, shortening) 5 i, e > unstressed i; u, o > unstressed u; a remains a. In stressed sylls there are both long and short vowels. There are essentially no long vowels in unstressed sylls. I'm giving you the way I perceive the unstressed vowels. Bill Bright has observed to me that he thinks the quality is somewhat lower, i.e. perhaps unstressed i, e neutralize (for him) to e. The point is that they neutralize, however; this is not in dispute. There are no phonological grammars, but there is a considerable literature on Luiseno. You might look at two papers by me in IJAL, one on reduplication in 1973 (I think) coauthored with Peter Benson, one late last year on historical comparative Cupan (the immediate subfamily which contains L.). I'm sorry I don't have refs with me here. Please ask me if you'd like more information. I'm sure that other related languages have similar processes. The one that seems closest to me, on the basis of what I know, is Gabrielino, in which apparently i, e > e and u, o > o when unstressed. I say apparently because this language is extinct, but this seems to be what happens in JP Harrington's field notes. I'm afraid there's nothing published on this, but you may certainly cite me to this effect if it helps you. I'd like to see a copy of your paper. Pam MunroMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue