Miguel:
>I have given _nothing but_ internal evidence. To wit:
>
>1. Brugmann's law
>2. The development of Tocharian vowels
>3. The non-colouring of *o by laryngeals (*h2 specifically)
Evidently you fail to see the difference between internal
evidence that matters and internal evidence that has no
relevance to what you're saying.
1. Brugmann's Law is a post-IE rule.
It's IRRELEVANT unless you have the gull to completely
overhaul IE phonetics yourself with confused & confusing
rules of your own.
2. Tocharian vowels are also post-IE innovations.
Who cares about an innovation that occured **after**
the breakup of IE in a specific branch?? Again,
IRRELEVANT.
3. As I already mentioned, the uninebriated view would
dictate that *h3 is merely labial [hW] and *o, being
labial, cannot be labialized anymore than it already is.
If you speak also of the lack of colouring of *o by uvular
*h2 [x], then this is again a point with little merit
since a lowered *o might yield nothing more than
another *o-like sound which could very easily merge
with the higher, uncoloured *o.
So your point no.3 isn't really a "point". It's just yet
another idea to smokescreen your lack of points.
4. The plene writing of *o in Hittite... ???
>e.g. in wa-a-tar "water" [this something that I have
>not investigated, so I'm not sure what the exact rules
>are, and how significant the thing may be]
Then don't mention this as one of your logical points
until you do investigate it responsibly. Treating this like
a point that I should be concerned about only dilludes
yourself more. IRRELEVANT!!! Another smokescreen.
5. The thematic vowel *o before voiced segments
is, according to my view, not from *a but from
earlier unstressed *&. This *& is only a reduced
allophone of both early Late IE *e and *a (>*o).
Phonemically, it weighed as a SHORTER vowel, not
a LONGER vowel, in comparison to *a. So this is
why *o/*e alternation only occurs in insignificant,
largely unstressed, segments like thematic vowels.
Again though, if we reconstruct IE short *o
according to the mainstream, what on earth does
this have to do with anything unless you want to
re-reconstruct IE *o as **a:, in which case I have
no time for your half-brained idea.
If we accept IE *o as it is, then what you should
be saying is that *a > *a: (before voiced segments)
> PIE *o > some post-IE language *a:... which
makes no sense for what you're ranting about.
So what ARE you talking about??
= gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963