[tied] Abstractness (Was Re: [j] v. [i])

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Glen Gordon
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 5:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [tied] Abstractness (Was Re: [j] v. [i])
>
>
> >> A phonologically plausible scenario could be as follows: an

original

> (pre-PIE) triangular inventory, /i, a, u/, developed into a square
> inventory, /i, E, O, u/
>
> > Hmm, I don't like that theory. For me to explain why there is *k

versus

> *q, I need to have one distinctively low vowel set apart from the

rest. Is

> this a common vowel system? Is it more common
> than a centralized system of /I, &, a/?
>
> The most widespread vowel systems consist of two parallel sets of

high and

> (where relevant) mid vowels with a [+/- front] contrast plus a

single low

> vowel (which is usually central and unrounded). A system like /i,

a, u, &/

> is also typologically plausible. Both vertical and qudrangular

systems (the

> latter with an equal number of [+front] and [-front] phonemes) are
> relatively rare, though well-attested.

According to the UPSID survey, the commonest 4-vowel system is /i, e,
i, u/ (12 examples). I get the impression that the second commonest
is /i, a, o, u/ (2 examples), but that does not feel statistically
reliable. (I apologise if I am repeating myself; I thought I'd
posted this more than 50 minutes earlier, but there's no sign of my
posting.)

Richard.