Re: [tied] Laryngeal theory as an unnatural

On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 10:02:03 -0000, "aquila_grande
<aquila_grande@...>" <aquila_grande@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "P&G" <petegray@...> wrote:
>> > -Some time when the wovel "e" was tuned to "o" or sometimes "a",
>thus
>> > creating the qualitative ablut. This was effected by neighbouring
>> > consonants - some of wich were laryngeals.
>>
>> Unfortunately we see the e/o pattern in many places where there
>were no
>> laryngeals. We do not see an e/a or o/a pattern except where there
>is a
>> vocalised laryngeal. This rather supports the standard theory,
>don't you
>> think?
>>
>> Peter
>
>Well, what you write here does not contradict my hypotesis.
>
>What I say Is this: Neighbouring consonants caused the shift of wovel
>quality. Some of these were laryngeals, other not. I.E the wovel
>coloring from laryngeals is only a special instance of a coloring
>process that occured at one spesific period. Namely: Coloring of
>wovels from ajacent consonants.

That is partially correct: vowel colouring to /a/ was effected not
only by *h2, but also by velar (= uvular) *k, *g and *gh, and perhaps
also by the nasals *n and *m (*-V:NC- > *-aC- ?).

Lengthening was caused by the laryngeals *h1, *h2 and *h3, but also
under special circumstances (-VCs#) by *s [and *h2] (Szemerényi
lengthening).

These parallels of course render the laryngeal theory *more* natural
rather than *less*.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...