________________
344
Amrita
emergence of contrast between /t/ and /t/ and the merger of [i] and [u] into one phoneme become simultaneous. It must be noted that the merger of the two, i and ů as one phoneme say /a/ or with zero is a matter of indifference as far as the relative chronology is concerned.
We may take a third example from the Romance field. We have both direct and indirect evidence to attest the following phonetic facts about the vowels of Classical Latin, early vulgar Latin and the early stage of continental west Romance.
EVL
CWR
[i:]
11)
[e:)
[e:)
[e]
[E]
(a:)
[a:)
[a]
回 回 回 回 回 回 a
[o]
[o:]
[o:)
[u]
[U]
[u:]
[u:)
The sequence of changes is clear. Classical Latin vocalism developed a further distinction of quality for the front and back vowels in such a manner that shorter vowels were lower than the longer ones. Later on the quantitative difference was lost and only the qualitative difference was kept along with the merger of i and e and u and o. Even here the length must have been lost before the phonemes merged as is seen in the case of a : and a. Still later a quantitative difference developed according to the place of occurrence of the vowel, whether in an open or a closed syllable. Thus the probable sequence of changes is (i) development of the qualitative difference in vowels other than of maximal opening, (ii) loss of quantitative difference, (iii) merger of vowels, (iv) emergence of new quantitative difference.
If we put the data in a phonemic shape we get the following picture :
