> Now, in _Jens'_ sense of the word, yes, we could analyse anylanguage
> really hard to yield whatever pattern we want, including so-calledmonovocalism.
> 'monovocalism', but this isn't real phonetic or phonemic
> In the end it is a highly abstractified monovocalism. Basically, an
> observed pattern in the vowel system that appears to mimick
> just as tv mimicks real life.Well, thank you, that's much more than any other theory was ever
>We aren't, and we weren't. Only you answered as if we were, although
> If we're talking about true monovocalism, phonemic or phonetic, it
> doesn't exist.
> However when you analyse Sanskrit such that, say, /e/something
> really 'represents' a _surface_ /ai/, you're talking about
> that is neither phonetic nor phonemic. It is completely abstract.In
> a very very abstract sense, we might claim that monovocalismexists,
> and I can't argue much against these crazy analyses.You must mean something else when you say "surface" - some such
> The whole point, Mate, which you're missing is that while I can'twhims.
> object to _ABSTRACT monovocalism_ as opposed to real monovocalism
> (the latter is indeed completely unattested), I don't see what the
> purpose is of contorting the facts of a language to suit one's
> What does it serve to warp IE or even Sanskrit into a monovocalicI believe you.
> system? What exactly? It's a fun game, but I don't get the point.
> > But there are a number of reasons in PIE itself which point tonot
> > monovocalism or something like that,
> ... Or something like that. As I've been trying to explain, it's
> a true monovocalism. IE had *a, *e, *i, *o and *u with longcounterparts
> making for a vowel system of at least 10 distinct vocalic phonemes,*y
> eleven if you include any hidden schwas in words like *dHgHo:m or
> *pxte:r, for example. The point that *i can be analysed as vocalic
> doesn't change the fact that in words like *kWis, the segment ismost
> definitely a _vowel_ *i, not consonant *y.In terms of the commutation test /kWis/ and /kWys/ are equivalent,
> Likewise in Sanskrit, "e"monovocalic
> is just that, despite the possibility that we can pretend it's "ai"
> instead for the purposes of the surface analysis to eke out a
> language.Well, /ay/ actually.
> We know that Sanskrit is not _actually_ a monovocalic languagethe
> nor does the abstract analysis that Jens is describing show that
> ancestral stage of the language had true monovocalism (clearly notif IE
> had 10 or more vowels).If "actually" means "phonetically" with reference to surface
> I specifically object to _phonemic_ or _phonetic_ monovocalism.Please
> understand. Abstract monovocalism is alright although notcompletely
> without its problems, but I still find it completely pointlessuntil
> somebody explains what the point really is. So far, everybody isActually you changed the sense it was used in. What is the *correct*
> quick to jump on my case to prove monovocalism to spite me, and the
> wrong sense of the word 'monovocalism' at that.