From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 55246
Date: 2008-03-15
----- Original Message -----
From: alexandru_mg3
> =============
>
TO RESUME:
===========
The current point Arnaud is if there is a difference between a
supposed aspiration x-t>t-x related to the fact that the laryngeal
was vocalized or not.
Marius.
============
Some examples to support the idea are necessary.
Now
It's also necessary was is :
- a vocalized laryngeal
- a non vocalized laryngeal.
Arnaud
==============
To make clear the situation for anybody here:
==============================================
1. Both Piotr and Miguel's abandonned (implicitly) 2 days ago Mrs.
Olsen's theory (as it was presented by Mrs. Olsen) => after both said
for years 'how impressed they are about this theory' => you can find
their old assertation on this forum too
================
I think
too much sneering at people
who acknowledge they are wrong
results in the fact that nobody does.
This is a general statement.
It's not aimed at you, Marius,
it must be the nature of such a forum
that these things happen.
Arnaud
===========
2. But none of them wrote this explicitly here...as usual...
======
Yes
I agree with you, Marius,
Like some supposedly brilliant
theory about Pre-PIE vowels :
- which accounts for central PIE,
- which can't be proved with Anatolian
and conflicts with LAtin data.
ye:kur with long e: > latin iecur (short !!)
The discussion aborted when
it became clear the idea does not hold water.
Arnaud
=============
3. Then : they have tried to improve this theory (in fact only
Miguel) with a new version of it => trying to eliminate the cases
that didn't fit with the rule by adding different other rules:
- vocalisation & non-vocalisation of laryngeals (that was at Olsen
too: and I was waiting for them to arrive there also...)
- stress position (Miguel's supposition)
the intention is to eliminate all the cases that Mrs Olsen theory
cannot cover at all
==============
Metathesis of laryngeals exists,
dh_H1_r_gh > tregh-
dh_r_H1_gh > dhre(:)gh
The question is :
what does this theory cover ?
what alternative explanations exist
for cases which resist a first round
of analysis.
Arnaud
================
4. Next I showed them that:
ph2te'r and dHug2te'r , accented on the last syllables, are in
contradiction with Miguel supposition
============
I have explained why I don't really
consider these examples to be relevant
nor decisive for either side.
Arnaud
===========
5. but they invoked that the vocalisation of laryngeal didn't
trigerred the pre-aspiration
6. Against this I showe them that in:
-> in PIE dialectal times a vocalized laryngeal /h2/ has induced
an aspiration in dHugh2ter (g>gH)
-> and that even without this I cannot see any difference
between the vocalized h2 in p&x-ter or dHhu-g&s-ter and the non-
vocalized h2 of max-ter regarding ' a supposed metathesis' x-t>t-x
because this vocalisation was donme by adding a prop. vowel (in these
2 contexts BEFORE the laryngeal)
7. Here hey both started to talk about all the languages in these
world other than PIE
and Piotr placed the aspiration of dHugh2ster 'very late'
In general they are saying that the fact that we don't see anyway
this metathesis is due to the fact that we are in a context where is
normal not to see it...for a case where this metathesis didn't
happened at all
They are not able to show any example where this metathesis really
took place...(each such example has an alternate reasonable if not a
better etymology)
So they prefer to talk in what Contexts this metathesis didn't appear
when we are in the situtuation that this Metathesis didn't appear AT
ALL
Quite pure sophism ....
I hope that I made a good resume for you...
Marius
==========
Thank you very much.
I think we probably share a certain
number of human values
and scientific theories.
A bientôt,
Marius
Arnaud
===============