Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 96. kötet (1998-1999)
Tanulmányok - Dezső László: Typological Comparison of Root Structuring in Uralic and Early Indo-European. [Az uráli és korai indoeurópai tőstruktúrák tipológiai összevetése] 3
Typological Comparison of Root Structuring in Uralic and Early Indo-European 35 ondary variants with back vowels after n: ne (no) (3), increase the number of back vowels. The combination of palatalized consonant and back vowel in CiVi is the problematic issue in thèse etymons. Such combinations are usually followed by a non-palatalized consonant and a back vowel or one which cannot be reconstructed and may dérive from u or o. The présence of e in the V2 position of CVCV structures occurs only in noie (no:le), suwe and e could be a back e. Etymons with internai consonant Clusters can dérive from C1V1C2V2 structures, similar to those we hâve seen, however, the consonant Cluster with a second non-palatalized élément could hâve the same effect as the single consonant. The instances in which a syllable with a back vowel is followed by another with palatalized consonant: coc3 (caca), cuc3, and those with variation nc/c in caca (canc3), cané3 (cac3) do not fît into the generalization: palatalized consonant + back vowel + non-palatalized consonant; they require further élaboration. Actually, in Russian we can find similar examples: Rus. t'ot'a. In sojwa the w in C3 position could cause rounding of the vowel. The following consonant groups occur in C2 position after initial palatalized consonant and back vowel: sonants (18),/? (2), k(\)J (1), c (2). I hâve also examined Sammalahti's list. Its data seem to confirm the observations made on UEW. In consonant Clusters, palatalized consonants are infrequent (ca. 30). The possible conclusions are uncertain, because the vowel after C2 is lacking and the final vowel after C3 cannot be reconstructed in half of the etymons. 5. Roots and Syllables 5.1. Methodological Questions The objective of this paper is the comparison of PIE and PU root structures contributing to the areal typology of Central Eurasian protolanguages. Root was a unit of etymology which can be reconstructed by phonological and semantic procédures and cannot be segmented into smaller units by etymological reconstruction. Root is a morphème of the given proto-language and is not usually examined from the point of view of syllable structuring. Etymological phonology analyzes the consonants, vowels and their combinations in roots of protolanguages. My article, being a chapter of a future book, was written when Bakró-Nagy's work (1992) was in the process of publication. Her book focuses on the synchronie analysis of PU and PFU and their diachronic comparison. In the last chapter she treats the problem of syllables, from the point of view of syllable theory, in detail. I hâve analyzed only PU but in comparison to early PIE in an areal framework. This required the présentation of the phonology of