--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"
<richard.wordingham@...> wrote:
> Why does one need trios of resonants if there be only one laryngeal?
> Why can't one just have three varieties of 'furtive vowel'? The
> varying developments of British English _secretary_ to, for example,
> /'sekritri/ and /'sek&tri/ spring to mind as an example of how varied
> developments may be. I'm still not persuaded that Patrick's basic
> thesis is disprovable within non-Anatolian Indo-European - it struck
> me as unfalsifiable. If R.hx could become RVhx, why couldn't there
> always have been a vowel there?
What would trigger the three furtive vowels and cause them to be
different? Three different laryngeals. The presumed furtive vowels do
not always stand where the full-grade vowel was. The schwas form
position in the Rigveda: savitar- is scanned savHitar-, duhitá: is
scanned duhHita:. Thus one cannot just leave out the laryngeal and
have only a prop-vowel. I know of no evidence that the laryngeals
would have coalesced with each other before vanishing; it is often
presented that way, but there is no evidence that I have ever seen or
heard about, it seems to be nothing but a widespread idée fixe. The
three Greek colours of syllabic resonants followed by laryngeals
present the same oppositions of coloration as the laryngeals had when
they coloured adjacent /e/ in a prestage of PIE, That certainly
indicates that the laryngeals were still there in the relevant post-
PIE linguistic stage when the specifically Greek sonorant colorations
were effected.
Jens