From: elmeras2000
Message: 32410
Date: 2004-04-29
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:
[Jer:]
> > If it is now acknowledged that [a], [a:], [a::] and [a:::] may
coexist
> > in the same language
>
> But it doesn't except in the most superficial of analyses. It is in
> reality a:-a, a:-a-a, etc. No language operates the way you want it
> to in order to justify your preIE madness.
>
>
> > then it can no longer be dismissed as a priori impossible that
there
> > was such a stage as *[pé::dz]
>
> My whole point is that we don't need to do this. There is simpler,
> like *pa:ts, and that theory does just fine to explain the paradigm
> of *pod-.
No, the point that was stated was that this was *impossible*.
Meaning impossible und *any* analysis, including one that disregards
potential morphological subdivision of the long vocoid into smaller
units. Well, that *is* possible. Then we can take a look at the IE
facts in a fair light and see if it is demanded. In my analysis of
the overall picture it is. It that of others it is not, but that is
mainly because they do not bother to account for the pertinent facts.
Jens