Re: Lsryngo delendum est

----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [tied] RE: Lsryngo delendum est


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Patrick Ryan
> >
> > =================
> >
> > I think people are tired of explaining you
> > obvious facts that you don't take into account.
> >
> > Even Chinese displays clear and strong
> > indication that laryngeals in PIE existed
> > and were kept different until very close
> > to present day.
> >
> > Arnaud
> >
> > ============
>
> ***
>
> And what is your "Chinese" proof?
>
> I have been working hard on my new essay, and need a good laugh.
>
> Patrick
>
> ***
>
> Chinese xu4 "raw silk, thread" < *sneH1-
> Baxter *snjaH
>
> Chinese xiu4 "embroider" < *syewH1
> Baxter *sjuwH
>
> Chinese xiu4 "sleeve" < *sluH-(bh)
> Baxter *zluwH-
>
> PIE loanwords with H1 pharyngeal unvoiced
> causing QuSheng.
>
> H2 causes ShangSheng.
> As in kuH2on "dog" > quan3.
> Baxter *kuHen
> Cf. PAA kvHvn "dog"
>
> What about your essay ?
> I need a good laugh too.
>
> Arnaud
>
> ==============


***

Is this Baxter's theory or yours?

If if you claim it is Baxter's, why does not not notive the *H's differently
if they have different effects?

Nama is very interesting. It has preserved some of the original meanings of
my Proto-Language monosyllables almost unchanged.


Patrick