Re: 'Vocalic Theory'

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <miguelc@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 12:22 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] 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'.

***

My system provides an economical description (Occam's Razor): *a:s- from
*Has-, which can become *as-.

***
> 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.


***

I do not think that is part of the standard 'laryngeal' theory, is it?

And I use a different terminology: an originally long vowel for me is one
_not_ lengthened by an adjacent 'laryngeal'.

Now the idea that 'laryngeals' color only short vowels is plainly
ridiculous.

Why should length negate the coloring?

You are wanting to come out at *o:(w)yóm.

And what would have made *o: originally long??? Nostratic had no phonemic
long vowels!

And, if 'laryngeals' cannot color leng vowels, how in Earth would you
possible know that the reconstructed 'laryngeal' is *H2 vs. *H3, or
even*H1???

See the problem?

***



> >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 do not serve a 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.
>


***

The last time I checked, apophony meant Ablaut.

Ablaut can shorten *a: to *& but not to *a.

Short *a often occurs in delengthened root syllables where we expect the
stress-accent to be located.

*á:s- and *ás-.


***


> >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.

***

And I explained it satisfactorily.

But if my explanation did not satisfy you, tell me why.



Patrick

**


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