Re: [tied] Re: ka and k^a

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: ka and k^a


> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 00:37:38 -0500, Patrick Ryan
> <proto-language@...> wrote:
>
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
> >To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> >Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 11:59 PM
> >Subject: Re: [tied] Re: ka and k^a
> >
> >
> >> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 19:43:42 -0500, Patrick Ryan
> >> <proto-language@...> wrote:
<snip>

> >***
> >Patrick:
> >
> >Oops! I let my fingers instead of my brain do the walking.
> >
> >I meant, of course:
> >
> >
> >The idea that laryngeals 'color' vowels to *a and to *o is, by itself,
> >totally ridiculous.
> >
> >
> >What does "And *o is not coloured by laryngeals" mean?
> >
> >Are you saying that you do not believe that *eH3 > *o?
>
> No, I'm saying that *h1o, *h2o, *h3o > o and *oh1, *oh2,
> *oh3 > o: (with the possible exception of thematic /o/).

***
Patrick:

Of course, we do not expect *H1 to 'color' at all.

But, since you follow these matters more closely than I, is the prevailing
theory at this moment that *H2 does not color *o when before or after it?

And, if that is the prevailing view, why would that be? Or do we simply just
accept it?

***



>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>