Re: 'Vocalic Theory'

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Wordingham" <richard@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] RE: 'Vocalic Theory'


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

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

>> > >> 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.

>> ... '*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.

> ... 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.

Or does *h2 merely inhibit a negatively conditioned fronting? Perhaps
it is more like *e ([&]) becoming [e] except in certain environments
(next to *h2, to some dialect-dependent extent next to pure velars).

***

I think we are going to miss the mark if we look at these different
'coloring' effect sui generis.

It is part of the _physical process_ of sound production that withdrawing
the tongue has a tendency to draw the following vowel to a backward
position: *VELAR + *e -> *VELAR + *a; VELAR + *a -> VELAR + *o.

Pure physics unless manfully resisted.

Remember when *H3 was first introduced, no one was happy with it until
someone final suggested the 'laryngeal' had a velar glide.

***

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

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

Which made me wonder why *h1 was mentioned. However it may have been
mentioned because its (post-PIE?) lengthening effect does not bleed
the colouring effects.

***

It is the triumph of conceptual system over reality.

***

> 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 PIE colouring resistance is probably an instance of a
language-specific feature - just like Dutch umlaut resistance, and the
fact that glottalisation colours vowels in some languages but not in
others. (Arabic emphatics are not glottalised, but their cognates are
in some Semitic languages.)

Richard.

***

When you say 'language specific', you destroy the validity of any general
rule we make.

When you say that length inhibits 'coloring', you are saying that the
'coloring' effect works on /e/ but not /e/ + /e/ = /e:/.

That makes no sense at all physiologically.

I cannot speak to Dutch umlaut resistance except to say in a general way
that some groups of speakers seem willing to allowing following vowel
quality to be anticipated in the primary vowel, and some do not. To me, it
is a physical thing else all languages would have a brand of vowel
rmony - which they do not.

As for Arabic emphatics, it is also backing in my opinion. I consider them
basically retroflex articulations of the non-emphatic correspondents. And
when I try to imitate the, rounding my lips slightly seems to bring me
closer to what I hear from native speakers.

Patrick

***