Pat Ryan> I am simply at a complete loss to understand the "logic" of this
argument (there follows a restatement of laryngeals and vowels)
Peter: The logic is this:
You said Arabic shows laryngeals before -a-, -i- and -u-, therefore "vowel
colouring" was less likely in PIE.
I said so does PIE, so your "therefore" does not follow.
What is the problem?
Secondly, Pat Ryan said:
>If there is any "evidence" that "compels" us to reconstruct velar
>fricatives, I would certainly like to hear it.
No problem - sensible question. But that isn't what you originally said.
You claimed that they couldn't be velar fricatives because they were
"laryngeals" and velars are not laryngeal.
My response was to remind you of what you already clearly know. The word
"laryngeal" here is not a phonetic description.
Peter