Re: Unreality of One-Vowel Systems (was: Bader's article on *-os(y)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"
<richard.wordingham@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:
>
> > > In fact, since sensible linguists are bound
> > > by language universals to reconstruct protolanguages properly,
> > > might we please keep remembering that one-vowel systems are
> > > _NON-EXISTENT_. It's not even considerable.
> >
> > Now, that's a deliberate lie in the mouth of anyone who knows
> about
> > Sanskrit.
>
> I'm afraid that is itself a lie. Have you forgotten the debate we
> had here on whether Sanskrit had a one-vowel vowel system? Or are
> you saying your opponents were liars?

If that is what can be made of it I have forgotten it. I can't see
the Indo-Iranian system does not correspond exactly to the classical
doctrine about PIE. The important thing is that /i/ and /u/ are not
among the sources of the monotonous /a/ of Indo-Iranian. I really do
not see the important structural difference between Sanskrit and
Benveniste's Indo-European. If anything Sanskrit comes closer to the
proposed ideal while the contrast between /e/ and /o/ is not always
predictable in IE. What is the big difference that disqualifies
Sanskrit?

Jens