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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob" <magwich78@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 10:09 AM
Subject: [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

***
Patrick:

The simplest vowel system known, Abkhaz, has a central vowel in two heights:
open and close.

***