From: Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
> Hi Jens,Yes; what I mean is that /d/ and /t/ were even opposed to each other in
> > This is not correct: /-d/ and /-t/ are not interchangeable
> > (neutralized) in PIE,
> They are listed as separate phonemes.
>I take this to read "consonant". If *-d and *-t are opposed to each other
> >but they are in Indo-Iranian and in Italic.
> But if you take the case of a voiced vowel becoming voiceless at
> the end of a word, you will end up with lots of languages on the
> list. Isn't this simply a case of allophones and why should this
> exclusively concern the phoneme-system of PIE?
> Some of theThe quote is not from a post of mine.
> discussion puzzles me somewhat. It could be simply that I did
> not manage to follow the thread from the beginning.
> > > And I don't want to petty about the vowel quantity because it is
> > > observed to be short as Eva has even kindly pointed out.
> I have not pointed it out.
> At first it was a joke and self-irony, thenIt is a very good candidate for a direct reflexion of the PIE abl.sg. form
> I just ended up with another question in my mind. The vowel in
> Abl. Sg. m/n is long, but it does include a thematic vowel plus /a/,
> or it could be an /a:/. Sanskrit alone, I guess, does not allow any
> conclusions on the length of the vowel. Hence my questions
> stated in another email. Not to mention that, I am wondering why
> this particular ending in Abl. Sg. is taken as indicative of the
> ending in PIE. I would appreciate any ideas.