From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 58452
Date: 2008-05-13
----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 6:23 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: PIE initial *a
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
>
> >> > ***
> >>
> >> You should take the whole thing from the start.
> >>
> >> *a is a rare vowel which conspicuously shows up only at the beginning
> >> of
> >> words.
> >
> > ***
> >
> > Patrick:
> >
> > Wrong, as usual, Arnaud.
> >
> > *bha:- (2x), *da:-, *dha:l-, *ga:u-, *ka:-, *la:-, *ma:-, *na:u-, *pa:-,
> > *ra:s-, *sa:, *ta:-, *wa:-.
> >
> > ***
>
> In these exemples, the vowel a: is long,
> something that is just as strange as short *a showing up only in the
> initial.
> In fact, _you_ are the one wrong.
> The data that you alleged as proof are in fact a whole body of data,
> that is abnormal from the start.
> This long a: should be interpreted as eH2.
> this is no **CaC, as Meillet and others noticed one century ago.
>
> Arnaud
>
> ============
***
Patrick:
Mauvais comme d'habitude, Arnaud.
*bal-bal, *badyos, *baita:-, *bak-, *band-, *bar-bar- . . .
Meillet, like you, was wrong! *CaC- exists plentifully.
***
> >> #a-
> >> *e is a frequent vowel that appears everywhere, including at the
> >> beginning
> >> of words.
> >>
> >> It is therefore extremely interesting to suppose that *a is just *e
> >> preceded
> >> by some consonant.
> >
> > ***
> >
> > Patrick:
> >
> > The parallel examples *ple:-, *pla:-, *plo:-, suggests strongly that the
> > pre-PIE inventory of vowels included *e, *a, and *o.
> >
> > ***
>
> No,
> you can't allege long vowels to be a proof that short vowels existed.
***
Patrick:
Mauvais comme d'habitude, Arnaud.
I allege nothing! Those are Pokorny reconstructions.
*e: = *e + *e; of course, *e: implies the existence of *e.
***
> I think this is part of your erratic approach,
> you disregard length,
> you behave as though short and long vowels are the same,
> The day you realize it's not the same,
> you will have made a step forward.
> I'm afraid you are still a long way up there.
>
> Arnaud
> ============
> >> Let's call it H assuming that H+e = a
> >> Because e ALSO appears at the beginning of words,
> >> you need two H
> >> H1e = e
> >> H2e = a
> >>
> >> Apart from accounting for the oddity of *a,
> >> the next advantage of the theory is that all roots share a standard
> >> shape
> >> (s-)C_C
> >
> > ***
> >
> > Patrick:
> >
> > Roots in the Vocalic Theory have the shapes *CV and *CVC (including
> > *CV:).
> >
> > ***
>
> Your theory is not "vocalic"
> it's half in the middle of the ford between laryngeal theories and XIXth
> century's theories,
> which were 100% vocalic.
> Arnaud
> ===========
***
Patrick:
The Vocalic Theory is 'vocalic' because it seeks to explain the quality of
long vowels in PIE by the quality of the short vowels in pre-PIE.
You are grasping at straws, Arnaud.
***
>
> >> The problem with your half-vocalic half laryngeal theory
> >> with a e o as vowels and only one H
> >> This theory does not explain why :
> >> 1. a appears mainly at the beginning of words.
> >> 2. a plays no morphological role, only e and o do.
> >
> > ***
> >
> > Patrick:
> >
> > The Vocalic Theory cannot be expected to explain what is not.
> >
> ========
> The laryngeal theory explains both what is and what is not,
***
Patrick:
A psychiatrist is in order for you, Arnaud. No sane theory explains what is
not.
***
> From a sheer scientific point of view, your theory is inferior,
> as it fails to explain oddities and holes,
> while the other theory does.
> Don't be surprised that nobody follows you.
> Arnaud
> ==========
***
Patrick:
I will not be surprised if you do not since you are incapable of reading the
essay, and addressing specific points made in it.
***
> > 1. *a does not "mainly" occur at the beginning of words (*#a); that is
> > ignorance of the data.
>
> ======
> short a occurs about only at the beginning of words.
> Long a: occurs after C_
> but long a: is not short a
> Again, you misunderstood the data.
> Arnaud
> ============
***
Patrick:
Mauvais comme d'habitude, Arnaud.
I gave you a list of just a few words with *Ca above.
*bal-bal, *badyos, *baita:-, *bak-, *band-, *bar-bar- . . .
That can be repeated for every initial *C in Pokorny.
Are you totally oblivious to the actual data?
***
> > 2. *e and *o do not play morphological roles, *A does.
> > ***
>
> What does this mean ?
>
> There is only apophonic e versus o
> there is no root with e versus a
> or a versus o
>
> Arnaud
> ===========
***
Patrick:
I have explained on many occasions what I mean by *A. *A = *e/*o/*°/*Ø.
Do you not even read emails?
***
> >> The standard theory accounts for all these features with an
> >> overpowering
> >> simplicity
> >> and a minimalist set of 3 laryngeals.
> >> It's no wonder everybody has accepted it,
> >> It's obvious, it's simple,
> >> It clarifies about everything nicely and elegantly.
> >
> > ***
> >
> > Patrick:
> >
> > I have raised several objections to the 'Laryngeal' Theory in
> >
> > http://geocities.com/proto-language/OneLaryngealVocalicTheory.htm
> >
> > If you want to dispute any of them, pick one.
> >
> > ***
>
> I read it,
>
> but I have not seen objections.
***
Patrick:
Then you are truly blind.
***
> As a matter of fact,
> I think that you should add a comparative table
> explaining why your theory explains the abnormalites better than the
> standard theory.
> Arnaud
> ===========
***
Patrick:
Perhaps I will - for those who find paragraph form difficult.
***
> >> There is no way back to vocalic theories.
> >>
> >> Your theory is not _new_
> >> it's the old approach to PIE
> >>
> >> Arnaud
> >
> > ***
> >
> > Patrick:
> >
> > Wrong, as usual, Arnaud.
> > The Vocalic Theory is new.
> > If you maintain it is _not_, specify who proposed it before me.
> > >
> > ***
>
> Your (half) vocalic theory is basically a modification of XIXth century's
> PIE.
>
> Arnaud
>
> ==========
***
Patrick:
Mauvais comme d'habitude, Arnaud.
Who proposed it before me? If you cannot say, then stop repeating your
mantra. OM?
***