Re: [tied] Daimo:n 'Divider' <-> Bog 'Divider' too?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mcarrasquer" <miguelc@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@> wrote:
> >
> >And how regular is this velar colouring of *e to *a? Why, for
> >example, do we not see it in *legh- "lie" (Slavic *lez^-)?
> >Or *sek- "cut" (Slavic *sekyra or similar "scythe"or similar)?
>
> For what it's worth, my explanation is: different underlying vowels.
>
> The vowel /e/, being --almost-- the only vowel in the PIE

phonological

> inventory, is almost certainly derived from a merger of different
> vowels in pre-PIE.
>

Why such a drastical reduction (all vowels > a single one)? Not to
can express what you could previously expressed?

In the opposite direction: there are 'Others' saying exactly the
contrary : the oldest stage of PRE-PIE was one with no vowels.

This supposition seems more logical: if there was a single vowel at
one stage it cannot served for any differentiation.

So for this reason is more logical to suppose, that this vowel is
derived from an initial stage : where it was only a rithmic
segmentation of different consonantic clusters (ex: C^C^C^, C^C^CC^
etc...).

Marius