Proto-Algonquian *aye and Its Implications

Abstract

0. Introduction. In two recent papers, Goddard (1981b; 1983) attempts to refute the model of Algonquian linguistic prehistory I began presenting earlier (Proulx 1980a; 1980b) and to defend his own more traditional views. The points he raises are many and varied, and counterarguments will be presented (Proulx mss.). However, there is one key point that turns up in both papers, and which is sufficiently complex and important to warrant a full discussion of its own: the reconstruction of PA *aye.' My position is that there was a PA sequence *aye, reconstructible chiefly across morpheme boundaries, whose reflexes coincide with those of *a: in most of the non-Eastern languages and with those of *e: in some cases in the Eastern ones-but which gives underlying i: in Menominee and remains uncontracted in some cases in (some of) the Eastern languages. The sequence is crucial because the reconstruction of the PA subordinative order depends on it, and this reconstruction in turn weakens the theory that the Eastern Algonquian languages form a genetic subgrouping within Algonquian. To defend his PEA hypothesis, Goddard tries to disprove the reconstruction of the subordinative order by refuting the reconstruction of PA *aye. He procedes by (1) trying to discredit the etymologies supporting *aye, and (2) claiming that a PA sequence *aye could not exist because allegedly *ay-e contracts to PA *e:.