[tied] Re: Bader's article on *-os(y)o

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...>

wrote:

> > >> The few remaining irregularities can easily be explained by
> > >> the fact that pre-PIE had two (x2) additional vowels besides
> > >> *a(:), namely *i(:) and *u(:), as typologically required in
> > >> any case.
> > >
> > >That is not a "fact", and it is not what we see.
> >
> > I did not present it as a "fact". It's a hypothesis, which
> > happens to be supported by typology.
>
> The typology of one-vowel IE is like Sanskrit. How can Indo-
> Europeanists dismiss the sheer possibility of that?

In Sanskrit and PIE, the phonetic presence of /i/ and /u/ is argued
away through ablaut and syllabic consonants. Are you suggesting
that pre-PIE has ablaut and syllabic consonants as far back as we
imagine we can see?

Typologically, though, does a system that is reconstructed with *a
*a: *i and *u require *i: and *u:? It might be that *a: was
actually [a] while *a was [&] or [e], leaving us with a 4-vowel
system.

Richard.