From: Brian M. Scott
> --- In email@example.com, "Brian M. Scott"It certainly appears to do so. The discussion leading up to
> <BMScott@...> wrote:
>> Correction: 32876 is your post responding to Glen's
>> statement in 32869, in which he wrote:
>> Likewise, that IE might be analysed as technically
>> "monovocalic" means nothing to the question of the shape
>> of the pre-IE vowel system. In fact, since sensible
>> linguists are bound by language universals to reconstruct
>> protolanguages properly, might we please keep remembering
>> that one-vowel systems are _NON-EXISTENT_. It's not even
>> I see nothing wrong with this statement. Piotr commented in
>> 22560 that it's the 'level of systematic PHONETICS' [my
>> emphasis] that determines the typology, and I assume that
>> Glen is using 'one-vowel system' in the typological sense,
>> and in that sense, to the best of my knowledge, they are
>> indeed non-existent.
> But in that case the whole statement does not apply in its
>>>> The few remaining irregularities can easily be explained[JER:]
>>>> 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.[MCV:]
>> I did not present it as a "fact". It's a hypothesis, which[JER:]
>> happens to be supported by typology.
> The typology of one-vowel IE is like Sanskrit. How can Indo-I could certainly be mistaken, but it appears to me that
> Europeanists dismiss the sheer possibility of that?
> We are certainly talking sophisticated phonology here, notThe question is not whether you know what you were talking
> phonetics. The outburst was directed against me, and I do
> know what I was talking about.