Re: [tied] Re: Unreality of One-Vowel Systems (was: Bader's article

From: Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
Message: 32946
Date: 2004-05-26

On Tue, 25 May 2004 enlil@... wrote:

> Jens, I'm not your enemy, at least not all the time, and this is
> one of those cases where I understand what you're saying and I
> agree with it in a basic sense.

Sounds like a wolf dressed up as a sheep.

> That is, I can see how one can analyse
> IE or Sanskrit on a very abstract level as having a one-vowel system,
> although only by ignoring all counterproof. Since the existence of
> this counterproof is an ongoing debate apparently, it puts into
> question whether this analysis is justified or not.

Yes, but even so it proves the existence of a language that can engender
such a debate. That has been denied.

> Let's say, however, it's fully justified for now. Even so, none of
> these analyses have yet any bearing to any matter concerning pre-IE,
> from what I see. If not, please explain _how_ they do. For what further
> conclusions are you using this monovocalic analysis? Is it not to
> substantiate your views on the pre-IE vowel system?

I would like to have an answer to the burning question raised by the
strikingly monotonous PIE vocalism. Why are there so many roots with the
vocalism /e/? And why so few with any other vocalism? Does hat fact not
have a cause? Is it not justified to ask such a question? I don't know
much about what is fact and what is fallacy in Nostratic, but we both know
about the theory that Nostratic had a variety of vowels which collapsed
into a single vowel in IE. I do not know if a single vowel is sufficient,
but I see surprisingly little counterevidence, so little in fact that it
calls for an explanation.

The parallel with Sanskrit is really particularly striking. One may ask
why there are so few vowels in Sanskrit, why only /a, a:/ when the other
languages have /a, e, o, a:, e:, o:/? Well, that is not considered a silly
question, for we know the answer: there was a major collapse of vowel
timbres. Now we have a PIE with a puzzlingly monotonous vocalism, and I
ask, why is that? Why is that a stupid question all of a sudden? Why is it
stupid to parallelize with the vowel collapse of Sanskrit and consider the
possibility that there had been a similar reduction of vowel timbres in
the prehsitory of PIE? And why is it silly to be reminded of the theory
already existing that there indeed was such a reduction?

Right or wrong, the theory of a pre-PIE vowel collapse would explain the
absence of a varied vocalism in PIE, especially on the lexical level (in
roots). If it reflects a real event of reduction in the vocalic variety it
may also explain that there apparently *are* a limited number of roots
with /a/ or /o/ as their fundamental vowel. They may be words that entered
the language *after* the presumed vowel collapse and therefore did not
share it, or they could be later coinings on the part of the speakers of
post-collapse pre-PIE. They could also reflect the result of processes of
change that have left only this trace and have therefore not been
adequately explained. How ever this may be, these are pertinent questions.

I would envisage these possibilities even without a typological parallel,
but since I was provoked and ridiculed for not having a parallel I pulled
the ace from my sleeve. Sanskrit is such a language, i.e. an imperfect, or
close-to-perfect, yet a little bit flawed, one-vowel language on the
level of abstract phonology. Just the thing needed as a parallel, in case
anybody cares. Now *that* is cruel and unusual.

Jens