WELL,
My theory can easily be applied in those cases where endings are
applied directly after wovels:
I gave one example. Another example is the conjugation of thematic
verbs: ebhero-m, ebhere-s ebhere-t, etc. Here the m-ending could
explain the ablaut. So- what is stupid with my theory in those cases?
In those cases where the wovel is in the root between consonants, an
ending could still cause the ablaut alternation. For example an -m
could cause the preceeding consonant to become labialized, and this
could in its turn give a wovel before this a o-tuning.
OR: The tuning could be the combination of the effect of both the
root consonants and varying affixes that influence the root wovel
retrogradely or antegradely through an consonant in between.
What I mean is basically the following: The influence of laryngeals
upon wovels, are exactly the same phenomenon as the influence from
other consonants upon wovels, and probably had an effect at the same
time. There were o-tuning consonants, a-tuning consonants, and e-
tuning consonants. Only some of these were laryngeals.
What I further think is as follows: This influence is the cause of
the qualitative ablaut, and the lengthened grade of the quantitative
ablaut.
-- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen <jer@...>
wrote:
> Yes, Al, that was a poor joke. It's hard to keep a stright face when
> confronted with a theory explaining ablaut, including ablauting root
> vowels, by influence from adjacent consonants, for in ablauting
roots the
> consonants are the same in all alternants. What DO you mean?
Believe me,
> these matters have been considered in combination with each other
many,
> many times.
>
> Jens
>
>
>