From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 58578
Date: 2008-05-18
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
>
> I will analyze them according to the Vocalic Theory for whatever light
> this may shed on their relationships with each other.
>
> I am frankly at a loss, Brian, to begin to understand how the standard
> 'Laryngeal' Theory could explain these similarities more cogently.
>
> Perhaps you can tell me.
>
>
> Patrick
==================
You have already been explained a hundred times
why your "vocalic" theory does not work.
In the first place,
the long vowels e: o: a: do not appear in some specific contexts,
such as C_nC-
The conclusion is that these long vowels are not phonemic
but must be analyzed as (phonemic) short vowel + something else.
The next point is
your sound change "transmutating" a vowel feature into a consonantal feature
runs againt the most basic knowledge about phonology.
Another point is that *a is exceedingly rare word-internally
and is best explained as being initially H2+e,
Indeed,
It's more other people who are at loss explaining you the obvious.
The standard theory is nice and elegant,
Your "thing" is inadequate on all counts :
It's impossible, it fails to account for data,
It entails major theoretical absurdities.
What else need be stated ?
Maybe one thing,
as you don't understand what you are doing,
you probably won't change your mind.
Arnaud
==============