To clarify my own point:
Both dom and dem are possible,
> of course, but they have a completely different tone quality and
that
> was my point.
... and the tone quality may or may not change the quality of the
related consonants...
In the middle range, which is the speaking range that consists of an
octave or so, it is harder to hear the differences in nuance between
the different vowels (I can still hear them, but this is a
professional deformation). The speech organs have an enormous
flexibility in this range, so if it is somehow easier to say dom, you
may still say dem, and the consonant may still remain unchanged. Or
if it does get changed, how long does it take for it to be changed?
People in Berlin still have a problem with the second
Lautverschiebung saying wat, det, et, allet, etc. It may take
another century for them to catch up with the others :-)
It is only possible to assume that at the early stages
> of human development language had not reached its level of
complexity
> as of today. Yet this is almost impossible to prove, especially
with
> the tools of comparative linguistics.
... because for now it tends to rationalize everything, excluding any
form of intuitive perception. That thing with the vowels is very
intuitive, just as singing itself. It cannot be proven, but it is so
for everyone who has done it. Should we say comparative linguistics
has very little to do with empirical knowledge? Just ask a linguist
how the laryngals or any other funny reconstructed sound was
pronounced. Tell me if you get a clear answer :-)
So, supposedly, our forefathers were articulatorial miracles - they
could twist their tongues and say things we cannot even imagine
saying. This does not sound like being intuitive, this sounds almost
like being religious :-)
Eva