from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition
- adj. Containing, marked by, or consisting of vowels.
- adj. Of, relating to, or having the nature of a vowel.
from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
- adj. Used as a vowel, as opposed to consonantal, especially in Latin. (vocalic y)
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English
- adj. Of or pertaining to vowel sounds; consisting of the vowel sounds.
from The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia
- Relating to, consisting of, or resembling vowel sounds; containing many vowels.
from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
- adj. relating to or associated with or containing a vowel
- adj. being or containing or characterized by vowels
Sorry, no etymologies found.
Compared to Tennyson, her inestimably more modest but equally self-elemented textual incrementation of historical destiny at the close of Middlemarch begins in the imagination of other secular ordeals presenting (and notice the vocalic escalation) a
Well – guess what it ends up sounding like…a guy from Sheffield England, imitating DeNiro in some scenes, remembering what his accent coach told him about Baltimore-speak in others e.g. “hours” as [æriz], and generally adding and dropping the post-vocalic [r] sound willy-nilly.
Clever, however only I-QA-*118 (HT44) ~ QA-*118 (KH 10) and I-DA-MA-TE (AR Zf1) ~ DA-MA-TE (KY Za 2) are available as evidence for this vocalic utterance, only significant if we assume that the two items of each pair have identical meaning.
There's no direct evidence for vocalic length nor is it even represented in Linear B.
What I mean by "abuse" is when people, unsatisfied with a protolanguage proven to contain seemingly exotic laryngeals with accompanying vocalic effects, decide to add laryngeals to every stem to account for all long vowels, whether it can be justified or not, and end up succeeding only in muddling the whole grammatical system in the process, obscuring the very thing they attempt to clarify.
Why don't non-Narten stems outnumber Narten ones which have marked vocalic length?
A quick and easy example of this is Bhadriraju Krishnamurti's use of laryngeals in the 1st and second pronouns *yān 'I' and *nīn 'you' or in his view, *yaHn and *niHn1 to account for lengthening in the nominative which opposes oblique stems *yan- and *nin- lacking added vocalic length.
If we actually explore the effects on a schwa sandwiched between two dental plosives using our very own tongue, we should notice that the schwa gains height as we shorten its duration between the stops ie. the vowel becomes increasingly closed, synonymous with vocalic height.
This additional vocalic height and thus increased closure would then be more apt to produce lingering effects of friction in wider environments when syncopated, hence sibilantization appears even when the first stop is decisively non-dental.
Thus the final two syllables still have the same duration as before and vocalic length merely transfers to the previous intervocalic consonant.