The basic short-vowel system of Sanskrit
(ignoring syllabic liquids) is just that: [i], [a], [u]. At a sufficiently high
level of abstraction it is even possible to regard [i] and [u] (at least when
analysing vowel alternations) as surface realisations of underlying /y/ and /w/.
This is not a "hypothetical construct" of modern scholars: the ancient
Indian grammarians analysed their vowel system in exactly the same way. The
status of [e:] and [o:] (always phonetically long) is special. Unlike [a:],
[i:], [u:], they have _no short counterparts_ in Sanskrit, and in vowel
alternations they pattern in a way that reveals their secondary character and
diphthongal origin:
reduced grade normal
grade lengthened grade
- -------------- a
------------- a:
i -------------- e:
------------- a:i
u -------------- o: -------------
a:u
R -------------- ar
------------- a:r
This is why the ancient grammarians
analysed [e:] and [o:] as underlying /a+y/ and /a+w/, so that in terms of
abstract phonemic representation we have the following
alternations:
reduced grade normal
grade lengthened grade
- -------------- a
------------- aa
y -------------- ay
------------- aay
w -------------- aw
------------- aaw
r -------------- ar
------------- aar
Is the rationale good enough?
BTW, humans can make a many different sounds, but
don't always employ them as speech segments. There are numerous languages with
small vowel inventories, and the three-way system /a, i, u/ is relatively
common.
Piotr
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 4:45
AM
Subject: [tied] Sanskrit and e, a,
o
Why do linguists say that Sanskrit only had the (basic)
vowels i, a,
u and not the vowels included in the Latin/Greek e, a, o when
it is
obvious from the extant earliest Sanskrit texts that they had e and
o?
Why do they ignore the existing extensive evidence in favor of some
hypothetical construct when it seems apparent to me that humans
probably had those sounds from near the time they diverged from
chimpanzees.
What is the rationale here? (It had better be good.
:-)