Re: The Monovocalic PIE Myth (was Germans have no /w/, ...)

Ray Brown wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 8, 2004, at 11:28 , Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 17:39:29 -0400,
> > Roger Mills <rfmilly@...> wrote:
> >
> >> This matter is being discussed on Cybalist at the moment!! For IE it
> >> seems
> >> to require a big stretch.  But one writer has posted a very convincing
> >> argument for Sanskrit as monovocalic. See msg. 33008 in the yahoogroup
> >> archive for a text in the 1-vowel system.
> >
> > Well, it is a matter of definition whether, in a language like Sanskrit
> > or Latin, one defines [i] and [u] as syllabic allophones of /j/ and /w/,
> > or conversely [j] and [w] as non-syllabic allophones of /i/ and /u/.
>
> Whaaat???
>
> I can't speak for Sanskrit, but it ain't so for Latin, especially with
> regard to /w/ and /u/ ~ /u:/. It is simply _not_ predictable when the V in
> the combo V+vowel is a consonant or a vowel, i.e. [w] and [u] are simply
> not in complementary distribution.
Not long after "Skt. as monovocalic" was presented, another writer proposed
the same for Latin too-- and was quickly shot down with the same/similar
arguments you give.  Cui vs qui, etc..... (snip the good arguments)

>