--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-
language@...> wrote:
>> If this is what you mean, then the weak point of your theory is
the notion that zero-grade operates separately in the daughter
languages. IMHO the economy of only one laryngeal is far outweighed
by the separate processes.
> I do not see the zero-grade problem in the same light.
It occurred to me after I posted that you would reply that zero-
grade was productive in the daughter languages. Speakers used the
reduced vowel not because that was the way they learned it (as with
English strong verbs). Rather they reduced the vowel because the
stress context required it. I had assumed the former, and that was
the basis of my objection.
> Let me know if my other response helps clarify these matters at
all.
I'm still trying to digest it. It is I think the largest 'meal' I
have encountered in a post here. I had wondered about the 4
laryngeals you earlier said you had identified. My only comment so
far is that you probably did _not_ say the vowel lengthening was Pre-
PIE. I assumed that, making the same mistaken assumption as above of
a one-time change rather than an ongoing process.
Now I think I understand how you explain what orthodox laryngealists
explain with coloring laryngeals _after_ the vowel. They also find
them _before_ the vowel too, don't they? If so, have you worked out
an explanation of that? *Don't* go asking me for an example: I don't
even know if the answer to the first question is yes.