Re: [tied] Re: ka and k^a

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 11:59 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: ka and k^a


> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 19:43:42 -0500, Patrick Ryan
> <proto-language@...> wrote:
>
> >No matter how often I write this, it seems that someone does not get it.
> >
> >What is being asserted with the reconstruction of pre-PIE *e, *a, and *o
> >is
> >that there existed a front phoneme /E/, a central phoneme /A/, and a back
> >phoneme /O/.
> >
> >The height at which they were realized is secondary. This is also true of
> >PIE.
> >
> >This threefold division of vowels is the basis for the commonest vowel
> >schemes in the world's languages (Anttila); and I wonder if anyone will
> >be
> >bold enough to challenge his assertion.
>
> The standard three-vowel scheme is /a/, /i/, /u/.
> Likewise, the standard two-vowel scheme is /a/, /&/; and the
> standard 5-vowel scheme is /a/, /e/, /i/, /o/, /u/.

***
Patrick:

So, are you maintaining that PIE */a/ was _not_ a central vowel?

And if it was a central vowel, why not order them */i/, */a/, */u/ - front,
central, back?

***

>
> >The idea that laryngeals 'color' vowels to *e and to *o is, by itself,
> >totally ridiculous.
>
> Laryngeals do not colour vowels to *e. And *o is not
> coloured by laryngeals.

***
Patrick:

Oops! I let my fingers instead of my brain do the walking.

I meant, of course:


The idea that laryngeals 'color' vowels to *a and to *o is, by itself,
totally ridiculous.


What does "And *o is not coloured by laryngeals" mean?

Are you saying that you do not believe that *eH3 > *o?

***

>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...