From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 55536
Date: 2008-03-20
----- Original Message -----
From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
>You have proved your case as far as I am concerned.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was precisely senex ~ senem
what led Martinet to look into the matter of laryngeal
hardening in the first place.
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
=======================
So, you did not read Martinet.
No wonder you don't understand
what PIE phonology is about.
I thought you were learned...
Martinet's point of view
you can find in at least 3 references :
BSL 51, 1955 p42-56
Evolution des langues et reconstruction, PUF,
p146 sq
Des steppes aux Oceans, Payot, p 154 sq
Martinet was (in my opinion)
a very impressive phonologist
with very sharp insights.
But he was not a real comparatist
like Meillet was.
He attempts to reconstruct
the PIE laryngeal system
on the sole basis of what features
and scars are been left on laryngeal
environments.
Out of senex < *sene-k-s
and sena:tus < *sene-H2-tu
And comparing adjectives like
audâ-k-s and saga-k-s
with nouns like agricol-eH2
He infers there was a velar H2
which can solidify into -k-
when followed by s
As not all H2 do that
there was another H2 in system :
Hence two H2
a velar one and a pharyngeal one.
the pharyngeal one does not
solidify into -k-.
Now, out of the fact that H3
sometimes voices phonemes like
in well-known pipH3 > bib-
he infers that there were at least two H3 :
a voiced one contrasting with a voiceless one.
Because voice-neutral consonants like -l- and -r-
do not cause voiceness, precisely because they
are neutral, they ajust to other consonants,
H3 was not voice-neutral, there was a Voiced H3
and the voiceness of H3.1 was contrasting with
another H3.2 itself voiceless.
H3 is not voiced per se, it is voiced because
it contrasts with a non voiced H3.
This is what phonology is about.
Martinet repeatedly stated that
from 1955 (!!) onward
and it's a pity half a century later,
orthodox PIE still hasn't understood a word of that.
Personally, I have just looked out of PIE
to check if these inferences were right,
and that's the reason I consider there were
many H1 H2 and H3
because PIE internal data prove it
and macro-comparative data just confirm it.
The set of 3 phonemes assumed in
orthodox PIE is *retarded*.
Just read Martinet
and you will know.
Arnaud
============