--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...> wrote:
> Oh. I understand now. Regarding the idea of the vocalized
sonorant, is this purely Jens Rasmussen's idea? (It seems quite
brilliant, by the way)
Well, Jens has already replied himself.
> And am I correct in thinking that he is a well-known published linguist?
That's definitely correct.
> Also, is his theory about the vocalized sonorant currently
well-accepted, or is it still considered more speculative?
It isn't generally accepted, but this fact has more to do with the
sociology of academic life than with the merits or deficiencies of the
theory itself. There are quite a few perfectly good theories rejected
by many or most of our colleagues for reasons that seem to me entirely
irrational. For example, the Francis/Normier theory of the "breaking"
(diphthongisation) of *i and *u before *h2 and *h3 in Greek and
Tocharian (now also in Armenian) is excellently supported by the data,
and yet routinely denounced as "controversial" by authors who somehow
don't bother to reveal what is so awfully controversial about it. I
suppose it is controversial just because it has been "common
knowledge" for decades that syllable final laryngeals just make vowels
long.
> You seem to have embraced it wholeheartedly.
Not without some reluctance. I'd been vaguely aware of the o-infix
theory before it was first metioned on Cybalist, but I'd never given
it much serious thought. Our discussions made me have another look at
it and I began to like it. It is a bit crazy, but it's crazy the way a
brilliant idea should be. It unifies a variety of seemingly
disconnected phenomena so little wonder it looks like a conjuring
trick, but the argument seems watertight to me.
> Personally, despite its brilliance it still seems rather complex to
me, with some difficult sound combinations (e.g. *bhlXgmos with what
he says would have been a consonantal *X, if I understand correctly),
and the problem of having no other evidence of such a consonant
besides its appearance as the later *o seems quite major to me. But I
don't know if my non-professional opinion matters to people like you
(I mean that with respect).
Even the opinion of professional linguists doesn't really matter. What
matters is a clear and convincing argument, and Jens does offer that.
> Do these suffixes begin with a voiceless vowel? I thought *k, *st,
and originally *h2 were all consonants. Am I misunderstanding what
you are saying again?
They are _voiceless_ consonants. Read again what I wrote: there was a
time when the thematic vowel was regularly realised as *-o- before
voiced consonants and as *e elsewhere, INCLUDING the position before
voiceless consonants.
Piotr