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

Jö

>
>On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 07:15:27 +0100,
>Joe <joe@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>>I find a two-vowel hypothesis more likely.  That is *a and *e(No doubt
>>not the actual pronounciations.  I suspect *e* is actually a schwa). *i
>>and *u, I believe, have evolved from *ej and *ew.
>>
>>
>
>*Some* cases of *i and *u may be from such diphthongs, but not *all*
>of them; my position is that there have *always* been /i/ and /u/
>in (Pre-)PIE.
>
>
>
>>      A two vowel system
>>seems to be consistent, vaguely, with the facts, and I agree that
>>high-grade *e>*e, low grade *e>*o or >0.
>>
>>
>
>I don't see what can be explained by positing /a/ and /@/.
>In which way does the difference between these two vowels manifest
>in PIE?
>
>
>
Simple.  The former is *a, the latter *e and *o(depending on the pitch
of the accent falling on it).

>>      Incidentally, has anyone
>>noticed the huge parallels between Indo-European stops(of the Glottalic
>>theory) and those of Abkhaz. (Ejectives,  Labialised Consonants,
>>Palatalised Consonants, Plain Unvoiced, Plain Voiced).  If a two vowel
>>hypothesis was true, this would also suggest links, as the Abkahaz
>>closed vowel has huge allophony, but remains one vowel, just as the
>>hypothetical vowel I proposed did.
>>
>>
>
>I am no expert on Abkhaz, but as far as I know, its analysis as
>having just two vowel phonemes is controversial.
>
>
>
Well, to the best of my knoweldge, it's the standard interpretation.  If
that's being challenged, then fine, but it's evident that it's a
distinct possibility.