Re: [tied] Re: Nominative: A hybrid view

On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Glen Gordon wrote:

>
> Jens:
> >Of course /a/ and /aa/ contrast, but so do /t/ and /tt/; we do not
> >posit a unit /t:/ for that reason.
>
> Um, no. Your /tt/ is the result of two distinct phonemes being
> placed one after the other. They do not share the same syllable.
> Of course, we could have a hay day and claim that /aa/ is two
> syllables just like with /tt/ but then there is no obvious rule as to
> why we don't find /aaa/ or /aaaa/ or /aaaaa/, etc.

It is not germane to phonemic analysis whether the elements posited form
a shared syllable or not. Nor was it ever important in the extreme
analysis of PIE vocalism. If we apply the standards by which PIE was made
to be monovocalic, Sanskrit actually gets _very_ close to being just that.

>
> >But mostly we do not *know* PIE well enough to make statements about these
> >things, [...]
>
> Oh God, the mantra again.

Yes, limitations of knowledge should be remembered in cases like this.
There may well be an element of ultimately unwarranted latitude in the
extreme analysis of PIE; if we allow the same for Sanskrit, there are no
problems there.

Jens