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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob" <magwich78@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 10:11 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: ka and k^a


> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
> wrote:
>
> > ***
> > 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?
>
> Personally, I'd say that such an inventory is less likely,
> phonologically speaking.
>
> > 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?
> >
> > ***
>
> Some sort of height contrast does seem to be fundamental in the
> nature of vowel systems.
>
> - Rob

***
Patrick:

Obviously, I did not express my thought unambiguously.

I certainly will grant that height contrast is fundamental.

My point was rather, if the pre-PIE front vowel was [i] or [e] (two front
vowels of different heights), what difference would it make for
reconstruction purposes? My answer is: none that I can see; but Miguel has
not yet commented, and pre-PIE *i, *a, and *u is his reconstruction
proposal. I have proposed pre-PIE *e, *a, and *o.

***

***