From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 40684
Date: 2005-09-26
>----- Original Message -----No. Just that there are a lot more 3-vowel systems a, i, u
>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,Alphabetical order.
>central, back?
>> >The idea that laryngeals 'color' vowels to *e and to *o is, by itself,No, I'm saying that *h1o, *h2o, *h3o > o and *oh1, *oh2,
>> >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?