--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:
> If Jens' idea isn't 0% probability, this still all equates to an
> exceedingly, ridiculously low probability under 1%. And yet,
despite the
> statistical odds, you side with Jens for
an "unattested"/"exceedingly
> rare" vowel system?!
It is not my idea for PIE, but I did propose it independently for
Sanskrit. The low probability does not matter, for we are not
guessing. If we were only guessing, nobody would get away with
suggesting that the IE root meaning "carry" would have precisely the
shape *bher-. Why would it be that if it could just as well be
anything else? But now we know the word, so we don't care about how
probable it would be in any theoretical sense. Likewise with the
vowels: If there were other fundamental root vowels than /e/ of any
significant frequency in IE they ought to show with such significant
frequency. Instead they are of "exceedingly, ridiculously low"
frequency, almost so as to be "statistically insignificant". The
same certainly goes for cases in Sanskrit that need other vowel
phonemes than /a/.
Taking just the first page-and-a-half of Lanman's Reader, we
encounter no difficulties if we try to transcribe the text using no
other vowel signs than /a/:
brhadas'va vvaaca
br.hadas'va uva:ca
aasyyd raajaa nalav naama vyyrasaynasvtav balyy
a:si:d ra:ja: nalo na:ma vi:rasenasuto bali:
vpapannav gvn.aayr ys.t.aay rvvpavaan as'vakavvydah. /1/
upapanno gun.air is.t.ai ru:pava:n as'vakovidah. /1/
atys.t.han manvjayndraan.aam mvvrdhny dayvapatyr yathaa
atis.t.han manujendra:n.a:m mu:rdhni devapatir yatha:
vpary vpary sarvays.aam aadytya yva tayjasaa /2/
upary upari sarves.a:m a:ditya iva tejasa: /2/
brahman.yav vaydavyc chvvrav nys.adhays.v mahyypatyh.
brahman.yo vedavic chu:ro nis.adhes.u mahi:patih.
aks.apryyah. satyavaadyy mahaan aks.aavhyn.yypatyh. /3/
aks.apriyah. satyava:di: maha:n aks.auhin.i:patih. /3/
yypsytav naranaaryyn.aam vdaarah. sam.yatayndryyah.
i:psito narana:ri:n.a:m uda:rah. sam.yatendriyah.
raks.ytaa dhanvynaam. s'rays.t.hah. saaks.aad yva manvh. svayam /4/
raks.yta: dhanvina:m. s'res.t.hah. sa:ks.a:d iva manuh. svayam /4/
tathaayvaasyyd vydarbhays.v bhyymav bhyymaparaakramah.
tathaiva:si:d vidarbhes.u bhi:mo bhi:mapara:kramah.
s'vvrah. sarvagvn.aayr yvktah. prajaakaamah. sa caaprajah. /5/
s'u:rah. sarvagun.air yuktah. praja:ka:mah. sa ca:prajah. /5/
sa prajaartay param. yatnam akaravt svsamaahytah.
sa praja:rte param. yatnam akarot susama:hitah.
tam abhyagacchad brahmars.yr damanav naama bhaarata /6/
tam abhyagacchad brahmars.ir damano na:ma bha:rata /6/
tam. sa bhyymah. prajaakaamas tavs.ayaam aasa dharmavyt
tam. sa bhi:mah. praja:ka:mas tos.aya:m a:sa dharmavit
mahys.yaa saha raajayndra satkaarayn.a svvarcasam /7/
mahis.ya: saha ra:jendra satka:ren.a suvarcasam /7/
tasmaay prasannav damanah. sabhaaryaaya varam. dadaav
tasmai prasanno damanah. sabha:rya:ya varam. dadau
kanyaaratnam. kvmaaraam.s' ca tryyn vdaaraan mahaayas'aah. /8/
kanya:ratnam. kuma:ra:m.s' ca tri:n uda:ra:n maha:yas'a:h. /8/
damayantyym. damam. daantam. damanam. ca svvarcasam
damayanti:m. damam. da:ntam. damanam. ca suvarcasam
vpapannaan gvn.aayh. sarvaayr bhyymaan bhyymaparaakramaan /9/
upapanna:n gun.aih. sarvair bhi:ma:n bhi:mapara:krama:n /9/
damayantyy tv rvvpayn.a tayjasaa yas'asaa s'ryyaa
damayanti: tu ru:pen.a tejasaa yas'asa: s'riya:
saavbhaagyayna ca lavkays.v yas'ah. praapa svmadhyamaa /10/
saubha:gyena ca lokes.u yas'ah. pra:pa sumadhyama: /10/
So, at least the Sanskrit in which the first ten couplets of the
Nala Saga are recorded works fine as a one-vowel language. The
notation of the words in the above is 100% unambiguous, in no
instance is there any other possible reading of the notation than
the correct one. And I have not used signs for /a:/ or <e> or <i> or
<u> or syllabic <r.> at all. They all occur in the original, but
they are expendable, at least for this piece of the language. You
couldn't do that with English or Latin.
Jens