Re: [tied] PIE & Sanskrit Vowel Counts (was: Nominative: A hybrid v

From: Glen Gordon
Message: 22682
Date: 2003-06-05

>Actually, I don't have a two-vowel system anywhere in my reconstruction of

Oh-oh, he musta changed something recently. Let's examine what
monstrosity he's created now...

>stressed unstressed svarita
>*� *�: *� *�: *� *�: *a *a: *i *i: *u *u: *a: *i: *u:

Well, as much as I disagree, this stage seems cool on the surface.
So I can't object.

>reduction: short vowels become schwa, [...]
>This leaves:
>stressed *&' (*^&', *"&') *�: *^�: *"�: (*-� *-�)
>unstressed *& (*^&, *"&) *a
>svarita *a: *^e: *"o:

Erh, why is *i and *u parenthesized? This is a typologically
unbalanced system without them.

>We now have:
>stressed *� *� (~ *�:) *�: (*-�, *-�)
>unstressed *& *e
>svarita *e *o

Well, the parenthesized *i and *u irked me in the previous
"stage" of yours but now the lack of *a makes me down
right mad. This most definitely _is_ a typologically imaginary
vowel system and automatically makes your theory
unremediably suspect.

>Szemer�ny lengthening then creates new long vowels:
>stressed *� *� *�: *�: (*-�, *-�)
>unstressed *& *e *&: *e:
>svarita *e *o *e: *o:

WHERE'S *a?? You need a low vowel, you crazy fool!

>stressed *� *� *�: *�: *� *�
>unstressed *e *o: *e: *i *u
>svarita *e *o *e: *o:

Ugh, it's still without *a! What does Miguel call this crazy

>At no time was there a bivocalic system, except in unstressed

A belief. Now the contradicting _fact_:

At no time was there ever a typologically unbalanced system
lacking a low vowel *a as you propose.

- gLeN

The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*