Re: [tied] Laryngeal theory as an unnatural

Miguel:

>But /m/ and /n/ are not the same phoneme, [...], I would claim
>that /m/ is "more nasal" than /n/

Both /m/ and /n/ are [+nasal] according to standard phonetics.
Your claim is baseless and irrelevant.


Regarding the Miguel's nasalization "hunch":

>It's incomplete, as I have always said.

Until it is complete, your theory is meaningless to us.

>Occam's razor was never meant to force us into accepting simple
>but incorrect theories over complex but correct ones.

Your theory is incomplete by your own admission.
So, it is as yet founded only on assumptions and incomplete ideas.
This violates Occam's Razor (ie: multiplication of hypotheses).
Your view is thus demonstratably contrary to principles of logic.

>The attempts at explaining PIE /a/ through laryngeals only have
>failed.

An exageration. Show that they have "failed".

>My nasal theory can take care of most of them, if only I could
>find the correct [...] formulation of the soundlaw(s) involved.

How is your personal failure relevant to us?

>That nasalization applied widely [...] in some stage of pre-PIE
>is demonstrated by the exceptions to the -n > -r rule (*-men does not yield
>*-mer).

This process is assimilation, not vocalic nasalization.


- gLeN


_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail