Re: [MTLR] RE: 'Laryngeal' Theory to be replaced by Vocalic Theory?

The original question was investigating the explanatory ability of the
Vocalic Theory as opposed to standard 'Laryngeal Theory'.

Miguel mentioned the nominal first declension instrumental ending
illustrating the explanatory ability of the 'Laryngeal' Theory; and it can,
of course.

But the Vocalic Theory, contrary to Miguel's expectations, does equally
well.

The termination of -*ia: nouns is, in the nominative -*ia:; in the
instrumental also -*a:.

Thus, there is no observable change.

The termination itself is a derivation from the derivative suffix -*y(V)
reduplicated (-*yy > -*i:), which was used to form some early feminines. The
derivative has such a wide range of possible implications that this
clarified by the addition of a genuine feminine suffix -*Ha, or -*a:. In the
Vocalic Theory, *H lengthens the vowel before or after it. The addition was
made to the derivative -*y(V), un-reduplicated, and the result of -*y-*Ha
is -*ia:.

Even if the instrumental ending were -*He (Miguel prefers -*eH1), it would
not change anything unless we allow triple-length vowels for PIE: -*y + -*Ha
+ -*He > -ia:(:?).

Miguel, also in error, mentioned a thematic vowel preceding this
termination. In this case, that must be regarded as a simple slip of the
pen.

Whether there is any advantage to either theory in this example is moot if
one allows -*Ø as
a possible instrumental ending. But to the termination itself, the advantage
of the Vocalic Theory is that it accounts more simply for the -*(i)a:.,
requiring only one 'laryngeal' as opposed.

Patrick

***