On Mon, 2 Jun 2003, Glen Gordon wrote:
>
> Jens:
> >I suppose we must both admit that we had not fully realized the problem
> >caused by the tiredness of the theory, nor considered the grumpy mood the
> >term used about it has now caused.
>
> Nor considered the absence of convincing evidence to support said theory.
That just is not fair: You are asking for a catalogue of thousands upon
thousands of forms to demonstrate that one can get through the wordforms
of Sanskrit without ever opposing two vowels to each other. One can
*almost* do that - exactly as the IE fundamentalist theory can get through
the root inventory without ever having to write any other vowel than /e/.
Actually that is all the extreme theory says, and it is in my view quite
close to being correct, at least so close as create the need for an
explanation why the distribution of vowels in PIE roots is so drastically
uneven. If the demand for a one-vowel analysis is extended to the whole
language and not restricted to the root inventory, then Sanskrit comes
much closer to meeting the requirements than PIE.
The theory of a monovocalic structure for PIE was never truly phonemic,
but was in reality meant to contain a dose of morphophonemic analysis all
along (at least by those who know the difference which may not be that
many). In the analysis of PIE it was permitted to draw on a knowledge of
alternations and to allow for analogical reshufflings of syllabification
variants. Now, if the same is granted the analysis of Sanskrit, then that
becomes a true monovocalic language - I emphasize again, of the kind
intended by the extremist analysis of PIE (be _it_ right or wrong).
Jens