On 2008-03-29 21:16, fournet.arnaud wrote:
> o is inherently longer than e or a
...
> So this argument proves nothing at all.
Au contraire. If *o is inherently longer than *e (but not necessarily
longer than *a, if the latter is a fully low vowel, requiring some
mandibular and/or tongue-root activity), then its phonetic length, if
stable, may easily acquire a phonological function. This is what
obviously happened in Indo-Iranian (Brugmann's Law). Conversely, an
originally long vowel, even if it loses its distinctive length, may turn
into an "inherently long" (though phonemically short) sound.
> To be frank, from competent people
> I would expect something less naive.
I would expect less hubris from somebody who doesn't seem to be
particularly well-versed in IE studies.
Piotr