On 2008-03-14 19:17, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> 1. I'm not aware/I wasn't aware about your past postings on the
> phonetical value of the laryngeals.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/34587
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/44306
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/47662
(for example)
The same reconstructions are accepted by quite a few standard reference
books on PIE, e.g. Meier-Brügger (_Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft_);
they probably represent the majority view among modern IEists, though I
haven't run any polls to check that.
> 2) If you don't want to post their phonetical values
> => please don't use the phonetical value of laryngeals as an argument
>
> It's a non-sense.
I said enough to make my view clear. The important thing is that *h1 and
*h2 were voiceless and *h3 was voiced, so with respect to the feature
[+/- voice] {*h1, *h2} contrast with {*h3}. But when you consider their
place of articulation, {*h2, *h3} are opposed to {*h1}.
> P.S. I also hope that this is not a forum where everybody should
> say YES when we are talking about the theories of Mrs. Olsen or Mr.
> Rasmussen. Their ideas will stand-up by themselves if they are strong
> enough...(and is usually the case)
Don't be silly. I disagree with both of them myself about quite a few
things. I like Olsen's preaspiration theory beacuse it explains a number
of recalcitrant problems to which no better solution has been offered so
far. I've never met Olsen and have no personal obligation to please her.
I like Miguel's suggestion too -- but please note that it makes Olsen's
case even stronger.
Piotr