--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Brophey" <TBrophey@...>
wrote:
>
>>
>> What sort of argument would you accept as evidence? How about
this:
>> If there were still three laryngeals, then under zero-grade *ah1,
>> *ah2, and *ah3 all have the same reflex of /i/ in Vedic. This
>> implies that in that time frame *h1, *h2, and *h3 had all changed
> to
>> be i-colored.
>
> No, it does not presuppose any i-coloration of the consonantal
> alternants. If the propvowels accompanying interconsonantal
> laryngeals were ultrashort, i.e. shwa-like, they could easily
merge
> if they were originally different (as I believe they were) and
> subsequently change into a more chromatic vowel. The merger of the
> shwas into /a/ in most other branches would demand an "a-colored"
> pronunciation of the laryngeals and thus make it impossible to
> reconstruct a common protolanguage.
>
Why do you presume there was a prop-vowel at all?
You presume, for example, zero-grade: *aH3 > *&3H3
Why not just zero-grade: *aH3 > *H3, where *H3 is voiced as /i/ to
make it pronounceable? What's your evidence for multiplying entities?
>> It seems improbable that they would all make the same
>> change. And if they did and were so similar, how did they
maintain
>> separate identities?
>
> Why is that improbable? All three IE k's have become /k/ in Old
> Irish. All three Sanskrit sibilants are /s/ in any varieties of
> Modern Indic. All short vowels have merged in Latin internal open
> syllables. Is it also improbable that the /h-/ of Greek hépomai,
> hêpar, and hésperos has three different origins? They were close,
> yet different, phonological change can be very subtle.
>
But all three IE k's were velars, and all three Sanskrit sibilants
were sibilants. For the laryngeals to become i-colored, they would
have to become palatal. Whatever their initial pronunciations may
have been, they were surely not palatal. Oh, I just noticed: In all
of your examples the sounds coalesced with each other, which
supports _my_ point.
> Opposed to this, I can see no evidence in favour of the idea you
are
> so bravely fighting for. Why this spin?
>
I don't know what "idea" you think I am so bravely fighting for. If
there is such an idea, it is that armies and navies have trouble
doing battle together. After a brief but intense skirmish over zero-
grade in I-I, Patrick's critics abandoned the field to him. Aside
from that skirmish, critical comments have only restated the
orthodox 3-laryngeal hypothesis. To continue the military metaphor,
this is an attack on a theater of battle the enemy does not occupy.
As an instance of this "idea," notice that when I ask you about
multiple laryngeals in I-I, I use multiple laryngeal notation --
even though I am skeptical of it. Notice that when I reply to
Patrick, I ask things that more knowledgeable people like you should
be asking: things like [What the heck are you talking about?] and
[How do you account for H2owis?]. When I ask _you_ about Patrick's
hypothesis, I ask [What evidence is there agains it?]. (I use []
here as indirect quotation marks.)
Your other replies will undoubtedly provide interesting chalenges to
Patrick.
My opinion of Patrick's hypothesis (in case you are interested):
* It is an interesting alternative hypothesis.
* It hasn't been negated (at least not yet).
* If it is not negated, it may be preferred by Occam's Razor, since
it does not needlessly multiply laryngeals.
* Insofar as there might be some merit in his (sometimes seemingly
fanciful, to say the least) Nostratic reconstructions, his
hypothesis may be a necessary consequence of those results.
Tom