--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-
language@...> wrote:
> > ***
> > Patrick wrote:
> >
> > I have explained this before but I will explain it again.
> >
> > I do not believe that laryngeals had any coloring abilities.
>
> Jens:
> But we very definitely observe that they did.
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> Some of my views on this subject can be found at:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/c-AFRASIAN-
3_laryngeal.htm<
http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/c-AFRASIAN-
3_laryngeal.htm>
>
> ***
So I see. It is packed with elementary mistakes. Indeed, so many
that I fear there is no point in continuing this class any further,
though heaven knows you need it. I mention some:
"The "Laryngeal" Theory was developed in order to explain two
observed phenomena in the early Indo-European proto-language: vowel
length and vowel quality". If you think that is all, and even the
core, you have never seen Saussure's Mémoire. And you cannot have
even heard of set. roots. Statements that follow fully confirm this.
"o: has two different sources: it is the result of H3e/o; and, it is
the result of H1o". No, that gives short /o/, long /o:/ can come
from the opposite sequences eH3 and oH (o + any laryngeal).
"what kind of phone can front and lengthen an o to a: but back and
lengthen an e to a:? This is what is claimed for H2". No, /o/ is not
taken to be coloured by /H2/ (it is by Lindeman, but that's
apparently a mistake), and, again, it is only a *preceding* /e/ that
is lengthened; in two steps, of course: *eH2 > *aH2 > a:.
"It strains credulity to believe that only on the demise of H2/3
were they able to "color" following vowels". Of course, but that is
not the way the theory should be portrayed: The development was of
course pre-PIE *H2e- > PIE *H2a- > post-PIE *a-; correspondingly
*H3e- > *H3o- > *o-; and PIE *H1e- > post-PIE e-.
"Earliest Indo-European had two original vowels, e and o, which were
grammatically conditioned allophones of an undetermined theoretical
vowel". No, /e/ and /o/ are not grammatically conditioned (not even
for the causative where the -o- is an infix, and not the vowel).
There are phonetic rules to govern which vowel it's going to be.
It goes on and on. Although I do not see eye to eye with Lindeman on
many subtleties concerning laryngeals, the totally uninformed and
misguided pseudocriticism you are producing against some of the
clear and classical examples that are presented and explained in his
various introductions to the laryngeal theory is so far removed from
fairness and expert insight that there is no point in continuing
this. I have seen much nonsense in my time, but this sets new
standards of ignorance and arrogance.
> Why not explain why laryngeals can color short vowels but not
long vowels?
That is a natural fact: Long vowels are stronger than short vowels
and therefore less prone to give way to assimilatory influence. But
even if we did not understand this, it would still be an observed
fact deserving to be taken seriously. I can't say the same about
your unfounded use of "Pre-Nostratic" in the internal analysis of IE
morphological alternations.
And so on ...
Jens