Re: 'Vocalic Theory'

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <miguelc@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] RE: 'Vocalic Theory'


> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 07:03:42 -0500, "Patrick Ryan"
> <proto-language@...> wrote:
>
> >Miguel, have you no further interest in critiquing my 'Vocalic Theory',
> >as
> >you called it?
> >
> >Your questions help me to clarify it in my own mind so are greatly
> >appreciated.
>
> I think I said all I had to say for now.
>
> In theory, if you have two parameters (a laryngeal and a
> vowel) you can vary one while keeping the other constant,
> and viceversa, and the results will be indistinguishable.
>
> In practice, there are two differences between laryngeal
> theory and your 'vocalic theory': (1) laryngeal theory
> distinguishes between VH and HV,

***

One of the reasons I started looking for alternatives to the 'laryngeal'
theory was the heaps of 'laryngeals' that are needed for initial long
vowels.

Also, when the stem vowel has changed through stress-accent to *o, the
results produced by neighboring 'laryngeals' are comical, to say the least.

Coloring 'laryngeals' are a 'fact' only of PIE if one counts *a as a
phoneme.

and (2) laryngeal theory
> allows combinations of HVH where the two laryngeals are not
> the same.


In case (1), laryngeal theory accounts for the
> facts in a straightforward way, while your theory requires
> additional rules at the very least.


***

Actually, I think that is a misstatement of my premises.

I determine the 'original' quality not by what I see in PIE but by comparing
the PIE root to other languages where there are indications of the original
vowel quality (HEgyptian and Sumerian are two but others could be included:
like Dravidian).

I make a final check on the quality of the vowel by inspecting its PL
source, and the semantics must also match up.

Only then I am able to hypothesize with good probability about the long
vowel of PIE.

E.g. a word that has to do with 'cutting', cannot be PIE *k^(h)A; it must be
*k(h)A.

What are these extra rules your talking about?

One rule is that long vowels that serve n semantic differential are
shortened: and that is why we see long vowels so often notated as *V/V: by
Pokorny.

My rule explains the variation while standard 'laryngeal' theory does not.


***


Case (2) simply cannot
> be explained by any 'vocalic theory'.


***

I have mentioned several times that long vowels in PIE have three major
sources :

1) adjacent 'laryngeals';

2) compensation for lost non-'laryngeals'; and

3) aspiration caused by formerly aspirated nasals, voiceless aspirated
stops, fricatives, and /r(H)/.

This is trickier but again the semantics point the way.


If you think my theory cannot explain something, give me a concrete example,
and let us see.


Patrick

***