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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:

> Exactly. No foundation. You instead start with a bunch of loose
> threads and weave them together to form a pretty garment that

unravels

> in no time. You need one to have a strong theory.

Exactly. If I had a "foundation" I would get a strong theory that
would hold up in the face of observations. I simply refuse to play
along here. God forbid.

> You've made clear, in contrast, that the foundation of your views

rely

> on your 'abstract analysis' of the IE vowel system.

I honestly think that's all we've got.

>
> Jens:
> > We both do abstract analysis of the interface of phonological and
> > morphological alternations. Your analysis is not different from

mine in

> > kind, only in the implementation.
>
> My analysis of the accent shifting as being underlyingly regular

is a

> inevitable conclusion, period. Your analysis of the vowel system

is one

> of many and is not a clear base conclusion. Why MONOvocalic,

especially

> when completely unattested?

You have simply written in things in your preforms that could be
credited with the effect of the accent shift. Small wonder it comes
out regular then. However, the account should not only be regular,
it should also be motivated. It's on this latter point I fail to
follow you.

The near-monovocalic impression has not been chosen at random, far
from it. There is an overwhelming preponderance of roots with the
vowel //e//. There are very few roots with any other vocalism. That
calls for an explanation, no matter whether the monovocalism is
total or only partial.

I should perhaps also remind you that I do not use the monovocalic
impression for anything. The collapse of a varied vocalism into the
minisystem of PIE can have occurred an any point. I would use it for
what it's worth if it could be revealed to be relevant. That has not
been seen yet.

> Why not DIvocalic or TRIvocalic (the more
> common pattern)? You provide no clear answer.

There is certainly not even a system with two root vowels of equal
or near-equal distribution. The only frequent root vowel is //e//.
That should have an explanation. There may be fringes on the carpet,
representing elements of markedly rare occurrence; if you count each
of them in the matrix you arrive at more vowel phonemes. My maximum
count for PIE stands at nineteen.

> It looks like it's just
> willy-nilly with you and you don't feel accountable to your theory.

It's exactly the other way around. Why don't you tell us why your
multitude of root vocalisms shows such an unequal distribution? Are
we simply better at finding e's, and if so, why is that?

>
> > One cannot sensibly begin with a conclusion. You are construing a
> > daevic world where all the good words have come to mean bad

things.

>
> Did you just learn 'daevic' today? I appreciate your poetic

rhetoric.

> Even though it's irrelevant to the debate, it's helping my

vocabulary.

The word expresses what I mean. I've known it since my first term of
Avestan forty years ago. I only use it in close circles. I'm not the
arrogant bastard you want me to be.

Jens