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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: ka and k^a


> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:08:46 +0000, Rob
> <magwich78@...> wrote:
>
> >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:00:34 -0500, Patrick Ryan
> >> <proto-language@...> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > But, since you follow these matters more closely than I, is the
> >> > prevailing theory at this moment that *H2 does not color *o when
> >> > before or after it?

<snip>

> >> I reconstruct a 2x3 vowel system for pre-PIE. Under the
> >> stress, the normal developments were:
> >>
> >> *a > *e
> >> *i > *e
> >> *u > *e
> >>
> >> *a: > *o:
> >> *i: > *e:
> >> *u: > *o:

<snip>

***
Patrick:

Let us say someone like myself prefers a pre-PIE vowel inventory of *e, *a,
*o.

What do you believe the practical consequences would be?

It seems to me that we would simply have:

*e > PIE *e
*a > PIE *e
*o > PIE *e

as against your:

*i > PIE *e
*a > PIE *e
*u > PIE *e

Is not the height of pre-PIE *F (front vowel) and *B (back vowel) somewhat
irrelevant?

***