Re: 'Vocalic Theory'

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <miguelc@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] RE: 'Vocalic Theory'


> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:31:23 -0500, "Patrick Ryan"
> <proto-language@...> wrote:
>
> >----- 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'
> >
> >
> >***
> >> 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.
>
> No. It's perfectly reasonable.

***

Actually, it is not. The Arabic gutturals and emphatics do create allophones
of the vowels with which they come into contact; and this affects short and
long vowels both.

Ishinan, is that not correct?

***

> For instance, long vowels don't i-umlaut in Dutch.
>
>
> >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!
>
> Vr.ddhi is a PIE derivational process. I'm not aware of
> anything similar elsewhere.

***

Certainly, you are not going to invoke vr.ddhi!

Are you actually proposing vr.ddhi for PIE?

You said "originally long".

So far as I know, it is not generally PIE.

And, if you think it is, please tell us under what circumstances it comes
into play - not in IIr but in PIE.


***



> >And, if 'laryngeals' cannot color long vowels, how in Earth would you
> >possible know that the reconstructed 'laryngeal' is *H2 vs. *H3, or
> >even*H1???
>
> Because the "bird"-word, from which "egg" has been formed by
> vr.ddhi, has *h2.


***

Now you begin to see the weakness of the 'laryngeal' theory.

Your determination of *H2 is not based on anything but your assumption of
derivation from *a:wi-.

In other words, it is a preconception.

And if you take another PIE word with initial *o:, for which you have no
palusible derivation, how would you determine the index of the 'laryngeal'
then?

***


> >See the problem?
>
> Not really, no.
>
> >> I already gave a concrete example: the ah2-stem Ins.sg.
> >> *-ojh2ah1.
> >
> >***
> >
> >And I explained it satisfactorily.
>
> I have no recollection of that. What was your explanation?
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> miguelc@...

***
-y-Ha(:).


Patrick

***