Re: dhuga:ter ('LARYNGEALS')

----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [tied] Re: dhuga:ter ('LARYNGEALS')


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Patrick Ryan
>
>
> **
>
> Well, it is a minor point in one way but a major point in another.
>
> The major point is that if "we can only positively identify the laryngeals
> by their effect on the vowels", then if the lengthened vowels are
> 'original'
> rather than 'colored', there is no evidence to propose that a 'laryngeal'
> had any specific nature except to be a consonant that would be likely to
> lengthen a vowel: /h/.
>
> ===========
> Laryngeals :
>
> - color vowels,
> - lengthen vowels,
> - aspirate consonants,
> - voice consonants,
> - induce tone patterns,
>
> What else ?
>
> Arnaud
>
> ============

***

do not color vowels
lengthen vowels
aspirate consonants (what else could you expect /h/ to do?)
do not voice consonants
- have you been drinking again, Arnaud?
induce tone patterns


Patrick

***


> The strongest argument I know against 'coloring' 'laryngeals' is that
> intact
> Semitic languages like Arabic have a full complement of 'gutturals'
> (?/h/¿,H) and while these may produce allophones of the vocalic phonemes,
> the allophones never rise to phonemic status as proposed for PIE.
>
> ==========
>
> Precisely because they are just allophones
> and laryngeals are still there.
>
> Arnaud
> =================
>
>
>