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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob" <magwich78@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 11:22 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: ka and k^a


> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
> wrote:
>
> > ***
> > 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.
> >
> > ***
>
> I also pointed out that /i a u/ is more phonologically likely than /e
> a o/. So, it would be best to favor the more realistic possibility,
> given what we know.
>
> - Rob

***
Patrick:

1) There is nothing "unrealistic" about *e, *a, *o.

2) Whether more three-vowel languages have *i, *a, *u, or *e, *a, *o does
not determine what pre-PIE had.

3) Since Miguel remains silent, let me ask you: what possible practical
difference does it make to prefer *e, *a, and *o to your *i, *a, and *u?

***