Re: 'Vocalic Theory'

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:31:23 -0500, "Patrick Ryan"
<proto-language@...> wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <miguelc@...>
>To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 12:22 PM
>Subject: Re: [tied] RE: 'Vocalic Theory'
>
>
>***
>> And not all initial long vowels require more than one
>> laryngeal (e.g. *h2o:ujóm).
>>
>> >Also, when the stem vowel has changed through stress-accent to *o, the
>> >results produced by neighboring 'laryngeals' are comical, to say the
>> >least.
>>
>> *o, being an originally long vowel, is not affected by
>> laryngeal colouring, just like *e: isn't.
>
>
>***
>
>I do not think that is part of the standard 'laryngeal' theory, is it?
>
>And I use a different terminology: an originally long vowel for me is one
>_not_ lengthened by an adjacent 'laryngeal'.
>
>Now the idea that 'laryngeals' color only short vowels is plainly
>ridiculous.

No. It's perfectly reasonable.

For instance, long vowels don't i-umlaut in Dutch.

>Why should length negate the coloring?
>
>You are wanting to come out at *o:(w)yóm.
>
>And what would have made *o: originally long??? Nostratic had no phonemic
>long vowels!

Vr.ddhi is a PIE derivational process. I'm not aware of
anything similar elsewhere.

>And, if 'laryngeals' cannot color leng vowels, how in Earth would you
>possible know that the reconstructed 'laryngeal' is *H2 vs. *H3, or
>even*H1???

Because the "bird"-word, from which "egg" has been formed by
vr.ddhi, has *h2.

>See the problem?

Not really, no.

>> I already gave a concrete example: the ah2-stem Ins.sg.
>> *-ojh2ah1.
>
>***
>
>And I explained it satisfactorily.

I have no recollection of that. What was your explanation?

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
miguelc@...