[tied] Re: ka and k^a

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, glen gordon <glengordon01@...>
wrote:

> Rob to Miguel about colouring of *o:
> > Why would */o/ be immune to laryngeal colouring?

I didn't say that. Miguel did, and it was not in response to
anything I said. :)

> Who says it wasn't? One could have a lowered *o
> but then what would we end up with? Just another kind
> of "o". Why would we assume that if *o is "coloured"
> that it must end up as an _unrounded_ /a/? We can
> have colouring of *o if we feel the need to assume
> more than we have to without a merger of the
> **assumed** open /O/ and the coloured /a/ being
> necessary.

I figure that the velar-fricative nature of 'h2' simply preserved the
Ablautend vowel as /a/.

> You people are full of silly talk again :)
>
>
> > I wonder if any given language must have at least
> > *one* of two contrasts (height and/or frontness),
> > but that one is not more basic than the other?
>
> One *is* more basic than the other. There is no
> vowel system that lacks height. Are you people
> listening at all? Sheesh! :(

Well, I understand what you're saying. Can you point to any studies
which show conclusively that "there is no vowel system that lacks
height"?

- Rob