Re: [pieml] Labiovelars versus Palatals + Labiovelar Approximant

If we want a phonemic orthography, surely. I think the inverted breve tries to do both... it represents the phoneme *u, that happen to be semivocalic.

But see the Lehmann's notation here [http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/books/piep02.html]; normally the resonants are by nature consonantal, and are vocalic just when there is no other option... like CRC.

Edgard.

> How could the i- and u- declension work otherwise? Like skt. nom. sing.
> pát-i-h, pl. pát-ay-ah, or nom. pl. tráy-ah, loc. triSú. And the
> conjugation... *H1ei-: skt. subjunctive áy-a-ti, imperative i-hí, or
*dreu
> 'to run', dráv-a-ti, part. dru-tá-.
>
> Edgard.
>

So should we use a single symbol <u> for [u]/[w] and a single symbol
<i> for [i]/[j]? Would that be an improvement over the apparently
more common use of <w> and <j> or <y>, or the practice of writing
brevets over <u> and <i> to indicate their consonantal (or perhaps
better "non-syllabic") pronunciation?

Andrew