Re: 'Vocalic Theory'

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Wordingham" <richard@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] RE: 'Vocalic Theory'


--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:

> From: "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <miguelc@...>
> > On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 19:48:44 -0000, "etherman23" wrote:

> > >In case 2 what is the outcome? If we have, for example, *H2eH3 is the
> > >outcome o: or a:? Does the initial laryngeal color first or does the
> > >final color first? Or is there some other rule?

> > It looks as if *h3 > *h2 > *h1.
>
> ***
>
> In other words, my *H.

Is that a joke?

In case it isn't, '*h3 > *h2 > *h1' clearly means that the effect of
*h3 takes precedence over the effect of *h2, which in turns takes
precedence over the effect of *h1. I think the latter just means that
*h2eh1 > *h2ah1 > a: (last stage only as laryngeals are lost), as
opposed to *h2eh1 > e: with lengthening preventing colouring.

Richard.

***

No joke.

Well, > to me is short for ->, 'becomes'.

Besides which, if I interpret it as you see it, it is simply ridiculous.

Why should a backing effect trump a centralizing effect?

Explain that phonologically if you can.

As for poor *H1, what effect does it have other than to prevent hiatus?

Winning the coloring bee over *H1 is a no-contest.

And, as I pointed out to Miguel, that length in vowels prevents coloring is
phonologically repudiated by the _fact_ that 'emphatics' in Arabic produced
'colored' allophones of all vowels, long and short.

The 'laryngeal theory' is like a house of cards; one good sneeze, and the
whole thing comes down.


Patrick

***