----- Original Message -----From: P&GSent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 3:04 AMSubject: Re: [tied] Origins of Indo-European, and naturalness of laryngeals>The "Laryngeal Theory" is based on several false premises, the most notable
>of which is that >"laryngeals" can "color" vowels. In languages like
>Arabic, ...
Your argument from Arabic fails. It is suggested that in PIE, laryngeals
colour vowels when they are lost - but you argue from a situation where
laryngeals are not lost, but survive. The two languages (PIE and Arabic)
both show laryngeals beside any vowel : in PIE we reconstruct, for
example, -eh1, -eh2 and -eh3. So Arabic is in this respect irrelevant.***
I am simply at a complete loss to understand the "logic" of this argument if it may even be termed that.
Let us suppose that *H2 was [x]. A sequence *peH2- would _remain_ <pex> but upon loss of [x], would be transformed into <pa:> if I understand you.
If *H2 were capable of *a-coloring an *e, it would surely do it while it still existed, would it not?
And if it could not *a-color while it was there, surely no one will believe that it could *a-color when it was not there.
I am, of course, willing to accept that any *H lengthened the previous vowel upon its loss: simple compensation.
***
> the form of the theory that proposes a value of [x] and [G] for
> "laryngeals" is particularly suspect >since neither [x] or [G] are
> "laryngeals' nor yet "pharyngeals" (not "guttural") but rather _velar_
> >fricatives.
Remember that the term "laryngeals" is merely a label, not a description.
It is used for historical reasons, and we're stuck with it. So the
"laryngeals" can be phonetically whatever the evidence compels us to
reconstruct - including velar fricatives.***
Perhaps most of us are aware the "laryngeals" got their name because the early theorists actually proposed gutturals for them.
If there is any "evidence" that "compels" us to reconstruct velar fricatives, I would certainly like to hear it. Unfortunately, it is so much idle speculation!
Patrick
***