Arnaud, I have the feeling that you may be too young to actually remember
(which is not quite the same thing as just reading about it) the storm of
opposition that was raised against the 'laryngeal' theory, which is
incidentally idiotically named (by, I wonder who?), when it first gained
prominence.
You would simply not believe the absolute foutaise (here it is quite
appropriate) that was written by supposedly intelligent men to justify the
specific characteristics of 'coloring'. Incroyable!
To a certain extent, this has been perpetuated to this day in sterile
discussions of what 'laryngeal' is or is not palatal or velar or laryngal or
pharyngal, stop or fricative or approximative, voiced or unvoiced - all
couched in gossamer speculation of the most improbable tapestry.
Like a spider on LSD!
As for your pessimism for the success of "truth" in science, it is part of
the duty of responsible experts to subject any change in the paradigm to the
severest scrutiny. And this is to be applauded!
If a new idea cannot overcome these hurdles, it is rightfully rejected until
emended or presented by a better spokesman for it.
My only fear is that I am personally inadequate to present the theory
compellingly enough for it to become accepted because I am sure that
someone, someday will be.
When you criticize my theory, I interpret that as a criticism of not so much
the theory as my explanation of it.
Not a plea for sympathy, just facts, ma'am, nothing but the facts.
Patrick
----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 2:37 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [tied] Re: dhuga:ter
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Patrick Ryan
>
> You have pointed out another problem for now accepted 'laryngeal' theory.
>
> If all 'laryngeals' became [h] in non-Anatolian PIE, then the 'crayons'
> melt
> in the sun; and my heretical ideas gain probability.
>
> Patrick
>
> ================
>
> I don't think your ideas have any chance
> to gain credence because orthodox PIE
> has put itself into useless hardships.
>
> It's quite obvious that the "laryngeal" theory
> as described in the orthodox three-phoneme
> H1 H2 H3 is not able to account for all
> known features.
>
> There were two H1 a pharyngal and a velar one.
> And there were many proto-phonemes which
> ultimately surface as H2 and H3.
> So long as people stick to an inadequate theory,
> (I mean a set of only 3 phonemes)
> it's impossible to understand what happened
> in each branch of PIE, and what are the detailed
> processes thru which many proto-phonemes
> gradually disappeared.
> A preliminary step is that people finally
> realize that the current set of 3 is inadequate
> and start looking for a better hypothesis.
>
> Arnaud
>
> ===============
>
>
>
>
>
>
>