Re: [tied] Laryngeal theory as an unnatural

On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 08:15:19 +0000, "Glen Gordon"
<glengordon01@...> wrote:

>Peter posts for the sake of directionless chit-chat:
>>> You side with Miguel on this je-ne-sais-quoi that distinguishes
>>> /n/ and /m/.
>>> You and Miguel fail to elaborate on what it is.
>>> This therefore remains conjecture.
>>
>>Alas it is far from conjecture. /n/ is in the dental region, /m/ not.
>
>Duh! Of course /m/ and /n/ are different and of course neighbouring
>vowels can have differing reflexes! You didn't read the previous posts.
>That's not even my objection.

Actually, that *was* your objection. I quote:

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

>I object to Miguel's half-assed claim that Pre-IE *m causes resistance
>of Pre-IE *a[:] > IE *o due to some "mysterious" quality. WHAT QUALITY???
>
>This assertion of his is what "remains conjecture" as per my quote above.

*That* objection has been dealt with. I gave an example from
West-Germanic. A better one is from Lithuanian: a:-stem gen. sg.
*-a:s > -os [= /-o:s/], acc. sg. *-a:m > -a~ [= /a:/]. Not
conjecture, but fact.


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