27-07-03 03:24, harper110338 wrote:
> If the posited laryngeals
> were deleted separately in each IE language, that appears to me
> to nullify the basis for reconstruction.
Non seq. On the contrary, the different reflexes of the laryngeals in
the individual branches make their _comparative_ reconstruction pretty
secure. Had the laryngeals been lost before the disintegration of PIE,
we'd have to rely on internal reconstruction within PIE, and that's a
more speculative method.
> Assuming it doesn't
> because of some data I am ignorant of, according to basic
> reconstruction method, one needs cognate forms demonstrating
> these consonants (their undetermined phonetic nature poses an entirely
> separate problem which weakens reconstruction possibilities),
We have _direct_ consonantal reflexes of some of the laryngeals in
Anatolian (Hittite <h>, <hh>, representing velar/uvular fricatives).
Their loss elsewhere is no more surprising than the loss of the OE
dorsal fricatives [x], [ç], [G] as in <daughter>, <eight> and <bow>,
also involving compensatory lengthening, vowel colouring and consonant
vocalisation (or the loss of non-prevocalic /r/ in non-rhotic Modern
English, with similar effects).
> plausible sound changes in several languages and/or morphophonemic
> alternations resulting therefrom (residue), etc.
There's _plenty_ of that. Some of the main effects of the laryngeals
(apart from direct reflexes such as the Anatolian aitches and Greek
prothetic vowels) include:
(1) vowel colouring (by *h2 and *h3) and its role in morphophonemic
alternations;
(2) prosodic traces: compensatory lengthening (not only in roots but
also across morpheme boundaries, e.g. *h1su-h2nero- > Skt. su:nara-);
accentual phenomena in Balto-Slavic;
(3) aspiration in Indo-Iranian: *th2 > Skt. tH, Iranian *þ, etc., also
occasionally involved in morphophonemic alternations;
(4) the influence of the laryngeals on syllable structure (one
celebrated effect is the failure of Brugmann's open-syllable lengthening
of PIE *o in Indo-Iranian in *-oC.HV- sequences).
> If anyone bothers to answer these points, where is the opposition
> to laryngeals (authors, bibliography)?
There's no _serious_ opposition to the laryngeal theory any more. Even
Oswald Szereményi, who didn't care for them, admitted at least one
laryngeal (*h) as a necessity. I know of some really strange pockets of
resistance; e.g. the Polish linguist Witold Manczak (whose
uncompromising hostility towards anything associated with late Jerzy
Kurylowicz is widely known) has a mantra that he repeats in article
after article; it goes, "Personally, I don't believe in the existence of
laryngeals". (Kurylowicz's identification of Hittite <h(h)> as laryngeal
reflexes resulted in a spectacular vindication of the laryngeal theory).
Needless to say, such a personal credo doesn't count as an argument.
Piotr