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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
To: "CYBALIST" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 12:26 PM
Subject: [tied] 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.
=======
No
it does not.
and as expected
you come up again, ever and ever,
with absurd statements
that your inadequacies are equivalent
with standard linguistics.
As could be expected,
and I wrote you would do,
you remained stubbornly quagmired into idiotic fictions.

I suppose the cost of acknowledging one inadequacy would result into
understanding the immediate crumble of your whole PL fictional construction,
and the pain for acknowledging this complete failure is too much to bear.
I guess some people here understand that your are a desperate loser clinging
to his doomed to fail dreams.
But this is what reality is about.
Forget these idiotic dreams and come back to real life.

Arnaud
============

>
> 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
>
> ***

It's not moot.
One theory is possible and standard : the laryngeal theory
the rest is idiotic incompetence.

Arnaud
===========