Jens:
> I said, and say now again: if Sanskrit may have an even clearer
> one-vowel system on whatever level that is valid, surely such a
> system is then acceptable in typological terms and should not be
> excluded a priori from the range of theoretical possibilities.
Jens, I'm not your enemy, at least not all the time, and this is
one of those cases where I understand what you're saying and I
agree with it in a basic sense. That is, I can see how one can analyse
IE or Sanskrit on a very abstract level as having a one-vowel system,
although only by ignoring all counterproof. Since the existence of
this counterproof is an ongoing debate apparently, it puts into
question whether this analysis is justified or not.
Let's say, however, it's fully justified for now. Even so, none of
these analyses have yet any bearing to any matter concerning pre-IE,
from what I see. If not, please explain _how_ they do. For what further
conclusions are you using this monovocalic analysis? Is it not to
substantiate your views on the pre-IE vowel system?
= gLeN