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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob" <magwich78@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 1:09 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: ka and k^a


> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
> wrote:
>
> > ***
> > Patrick:
> >
> > 1) There is nothing "unrealistic" about *e, *a, *o.
>
> Do you know of an existing language with such a vowel inventory?
>
> I cannot (yet) say that /e a o/ is unrealistic, but /i a u/ is *more*
> probable, since languages with only three vowels tend to maximize the
> distinctions between them.

***
Patrick:

Why would greater height "maximize the disinction"?

***


> > 2) Whether more three-vowel languages have *i, *a, *u, or *e, *a,
> > *o does not determine what pre-PIE had.
>
> True, but it does affect the likelihood for different scenarios of
> (pre-)IE.
>
> > 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?
> >
> > ***
>
> The difference of less typological realism (notice I do not
> say "unrealism") to more.

***
Patrick:

And what are the _practical_ benefits of "typological realism"?

***


> - Rob
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>