On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:58:09 GMT, "Glen Gordon"
<
glengordon01@...> wrote:
>Piotr:
>>The very idea that some of the laryngeals were *distinctively* voiced
>>(non-distinctively voiced ones would not have caused this kind of
>> >assimilation) is a Pandora's box opener. Two or three laryngeals are
>> >just enough for my taste.
>
>Miguel:
>>De gustibus...
>
>Ne. De "Occam's Razor". Why complicate things when there is no need to?
Why indeed? It all depends on one's needs. If you want to talk about
run-of-the-mill IE comparative linguistics, all you'll ever need will
be three laryngeals (h1, h2, h3). Less is not an option. More are
not strictly demonstrable or needed. Except maybe *h4 if you're
worried about the lack of <h> in certain Anatolian forms.
If, however, your needs extend to the internal or external
reconstruction of pre-PIE or somesuch (Proto-Nostratic, for instance),
all options are open again, and the number can go down or up. One
might want to derive all three laryngeals from a single *H, for
instance h1 < Hy, h2 < H, h3 < Hw. Or one might want to see certain
laryngeals as mergers of earlier independent phonemes, e.g. /?/ + /h/
> *h1, /x/ + /G/ > *h2. Or one might want to do a combination of
both. If there is a need to do so.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...