Re: 'Vocalic Theory'

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:57:20 -0500, "Patrick Ryan"
<proto-language@...> wrote:

>----- 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.

What's wrong with a root like, say, *h2ah1s-? It's like
saying that a root like *men- requires 'heaps of nasals'.

And not all initial long vowels require more than one
laryngeal (e.g. *h2o:ujóm).

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

*o, being an originally long vowel, is not affected by
laryngeal colouring, just like *e: isn't.

>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?

If all adjacent laryngeals caused lengthening, you must
explain why half of the reflexes (namely *HV) are _short_.
For instance, in Hittite *-h2a gives -ha, while *-ah2 gives
-a:.

>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.

Laryngeal theory doesn't need to explain the variation: the
theory of apophony does that.

>
>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.

I already gave a concrete example: the ah2-stem Ins.sg.
*-ojh2ah1.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
miguelc@...