From: etherman23
Message: 40358
Date: 2005-09-23
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "etherman23" <etherman23@...> wrote:Yes, I assume it's native. For Pre-PIE I'd have /a/, /e/, /i/, and
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> >
> > > > I disagree that /e/, /o/, and zero are allophones of *a, though.
> > >
> > > *a is just a label. It means (here) "the PIE ablaut vowel". Or "the
> set
> > > of vowels which descend from pre-PIE /a/". Just like English [-a-]
> > > really means /รค/ or /eI/ or /&/.
> >
> > Sure, but I also believe in PIE /a/ so I'd rather write *e for /e/,
> > /o/, and zero.
>
> Be my guest ;-)
>
> Does your belief in PIE /a/ include its being 'native' PIE? Surely, if
> pre-PIE /a/ -> {/e/, /o/, zero}, PIE would have had a hole where /a/
> was supposed to be (except for the environment of 'plain' /k/, /h2/
> etc). Where would reconstructed PIE /a/ have come from?