Re: 'Vocalic Theory'

Then why call it the 'vocalic' theory?

That is what Miguel dubbed my theory.


Patrick

----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 1:22 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [tied] RE: 'Vocalic Theory'


> I mean Miguel's theory
> not yours (Patrick)
>
> Arnaud
>
> ==========
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Patrick Ryan
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 7:00 PM
> Subject: [Courrier indésirable] Re: Re: [tied] RE: 'Vocalic Theory'
>
>
> I shared it only with Winfred Lehmann before passing it out for inspection
> by this group.
>
> Patrick
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 12:44 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: [tied] RE: 'Vocalic Theory'
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> >
> >
> > *o, being an originally long vowel, is not affected by
> > laryngeal colouring, just like *e: isn't.
> >
> > Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> > ==============
> >
> > Who believes in this vocalic theory
> > in current PIE circles ?
> >
> > Are we supposed to consider this
> > the new paradigm
> > or is this an experimental idea
> > shared by a limited group of people ?
> >
> > Arnaud
> >
> > ================
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>