Re: [tied] Re: Short and long vowels; the explanation of Old Indian

----- Original Message -----

From: Miguel Carrasquer

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 5:47 PM

Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Short and long vowels; the explanation of Old Indian /i/ as zero-grade <a:>

>  Oh, I see you have now dropped the suspect *&1, *&2, and *&3. Just as well, they were meaningless.

I haven't dropped them at all.  The Greek facts don't allow
it.

***

Patrick:

 

Have you ever thought that if you would furnish specific examples for your generalization when you make the, we could cut down on used bandwidth by 75%.

 

OK, what Greek facts?

 

 

***
>  By the way, I like 6 better for schwa.

Yuck.

& Double Yuck.

 

***

>  Anything can develop into anything but some anything are pretty rare.
>
>  What proof do you have for the phonetic reality of schwa as a result of all vocalized laryngeals outside Greek. Ah, well, another unanswered question, I would bet.

Earlier, you seemed to be unaware of the fact that they
generally develop into /a/ outside Greek and Indo-Iranian.
In Balto-Slavic, they develop into zero + rising tone.

 

***

Patrick:

 

I read this list. And I do a lot of outside reading. I am not unfamiliar with anything you have said or written. But I am not going to get into a discussion of Balto-Slavic accentology about which no two people on this list seem to be able to agree on anything.

 

If you will look above this text, you will see what topic I proposed. Let's stick to it.

 

You can discuss Balto-Slavic matters with someone else.

 

 

***

>  What proof do you have you're the stage /r&/?

What's your alternative hypothesis?

***

Patrick:

 

I did not propose the idea. I asked you your reasons. Obviously, you do not have any.

 

 

***