Re: Laryngeal Loss (was Does Koenraad Elst Meet Hock´s Challenge?)

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <richard.wordingham@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 6:16 PM
> Subject: [tied] Laryngeal Loss (was Does Koenraad Elst Meet Hock´s

Challenge?)

>
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>"
> > <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> >
> > > All true.
> > > Let me try to recapitulate. I wondered why IE, unlike

AfroAsiatic,

> > > has done away with their laryngeals. You, Piotr, then assure

me,

> > with
> > > many examples from various IE branches, that the loss of

laryngeals

> > > is a natural process. It seems to me that you have thereby

declared

> > > the AfrAs languages to be unnatural, which I don't think was

your

> > > intended purpose? Which takes me back to my original question:

why

> > IE
> > > and not AfrAs?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:

> The IE languages eventually lost the _original_ PIE laryngeals, but

many if not most of them developed new generations of "laryngeals" --
various /x/ and /h/-like phonemes with dorsal, pharyngeal or glottal
articulations. The loss of such sounds is a common cross-linguistic
tendency, by no means restricted to IE.

>
> Piotr
>

Yes, yes. Let me rephrase then:
Why did almost all of IE's and almost none of AfrAs' branches loose
their _original_ laryngeals at an early date, regardless of whether
they later developped new ones?

Torsten