Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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

From:Joe <joe@...>
Date:Wednesday, June 9, 2004, 20:13
> >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.