From: Richard Wordingham
Message: 53151
Date: 2008-02-14
>literature
> Thank you very much for information _without_ the cake icing.
>
> Obviously, there is no way I can immerse myself in the latest
> which, I have the feeling, you do. But I would have thought I wouldhave
> heard of *&.my way
>
> But is this not a real sonor ex machina?
>
> The major objection I would have to it (*i, *u, *&, *a) is, that to
> of thinking, it is asymmetrical: one height level for front and backbut two
> heights for central.Actually, it has an unusual degree of symmetry. 4 vowel systems are
>either
> Plus, the road by which we get to *& is a little circular, I think.
>
>
> Patrick
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 5:55 AM
> Subject: Re: [tied] *a/*a: ablaut
>
>
> > Patrick Ryan pisze:
> >
> > > Is this pre-PIE fourth vowel [&] generally accepted now in PIEist
> > > circles?
> >
> > There isn't much discussion of pre-PIE vowels, so it's hard to say if
> > there is any kind of consensus about the "pre-proto" system. I suppose
> > it's widely accepted that the *e/*o/*zero ablaut pattern is derivable
> > from a single vowel (no matter what its precise quality -- *e would do
> > just as well as *&) and that most *a's, and many *o's, are due to the
> > laryngeal colouring of an original *e. Those who believe in a
> > "fundamental" *a(:) vowel are left with little choice. They must
> > reconstruct a second non-high vowel, lower than the first (i.e. an*e/*&
> > : *a contrast) already in pre-PIE, or treat all non-laryngeal *a roots
> > as somehow extraneous (borrowed, onomatopoeic -- whatever).
> >
> > Piotr
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>