[tied] Re: Unreality of One-Vowel Systems (was: Bader's article on

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> The main thing is to establish exactly what we're talking
> about.

Exactly.

> From a _phonetic_ point of view Sanskrit has the
> vowels [i], [i:], [u], [u:], [&] and [a:] (plus [e:] and
> [o:] after monophthongization of /ai/ and /au/).

Sure.

> It's possible to apply an abstract phonological analysis
> which reduces all of these to consonants (/y/, /w/) and a
> single vowel /a/ ([a:] = /aa/ and, to quote Pa:n.ini, [&] =
> /a/).

Right again.

> Now does the prohibition against one-vowel systems apply at
> the phonetic level or at the phonological level? I think it
> *must* apply at the phonetical level. After all, there is
> usually a 1 to n mapping from the actual phonetics to the
> phonological analysis (in other words, more than one
> analysis is possible).

That does not matter here, for the statement I protested against was
one comparing Sanskrit with PIE. And if an abstract analysis in
terms of a system with a single vowel phoneme is possible (or
closely so) for one of these, the same goes for the other. To deny
that *after* it has been pointed out is such a provocation that I
called it a lie. If it is something else I am sorry.

Jens