From: Patrick Ryan
----- Original Message -----From: Richard WordinghamSent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 7:30 PMSubject: [tied] Re: Short and long vowels<snip>
What are you postulating phonetically then? Your ideas as you phrase
them are open to ridicule, and I expressed my best understanding of
what you are trying to say. I suppose the laryngeal may have survived
quite late - laryngeals are discernible, for example, in the metre of
> But Point 3 strikes me as a step backward. I am trying to explain
_why_ we have specifically <i> in Old Indian.
But Point 3 is the observed outcome. Are you disputing it?
> Merge with /i/, why not with /u/? See my point?
Merger with /i/ is a common enough fate for a schwa - think of the
pronunciation 'sennit' of English _senate_. /u/ is fairly rare except
under the influence of labials.***Patrick:There is no schwa in the proposal I have made. That is my my basic objection to your Point 3.So, yes, I would have to dispute it.***
Miguel made the point earlier that Old Indic vocalic /r/ became /ri/.
That is not universal - other high vowels occur in non-Indic language
that have borrowed words with this vowel - I think the pronunciation
is /ru/ in Tamil, and in Thai the following high vowel is often the
back unrounded vowel.***Patrick:What <R> does is not of interest in this context. It has no bearing on the question.***