Re: [MTLR] RE: The Vocalic Theory (PIE *al-)

----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <MTLR@yahoogroups.com>; "CYBALIST" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>;
"NOSTRATICA" <mail@...>; "NOSTRATIC-E" <nostratic@yahoogroups.com>;
"NOSTRATIC-L" <Nostratic-L@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 7:22 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: [MTLR] RE: The Vocalic Theory (PIE *al-)


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
>
> >
> > I will analyze them according to the Vocalic Theory for whatever light
> > this may shed on their relationships with each other.
> >
> > I am frankly at a loss, Brian, to begin to understand how the standard
> > 'Laryngeal' Theory could explain these similarities more cogently.
> >
> > Perhaps you can tell me.
> >
> >
> > Patrick
> ==================
>
> You have already been explained a hundred times
> why your "vocalic" theory does not work.
>
> In the first place,
> the long vowels e: o: a: do not appear in some specific contexts,
> such as C_nC-
> The conclusion is that these long vowels are not phonemic
> but must be analyzed as (phonemic) short vowel + something else.

***

Patrick:

Mauvais, Arnaud, comme d'habitude.

Your cockamamie rule that *e:/*a:/*o: must appear in _all_ phonological
contexts to qualify as phonemes is your personal fantasy.

To analyze *e: as anything but *e + *e is clearly ridiculous to everyone but
you.

***


> The next point is
> your sound change "transmutating" a vowel feature into a consonantal
> feature
> runs against the most basic knowledge about phonology.
>
> Another point is that *a is exceedingly rare word-internally
> and is best explained as being initially H2+e,

***

Patrick:

Mauvais, mauvais, comme d'habitude, Arnaud.

I have never suggested that a vowel feature transmutes into a consonantal
feature; you are and you have it backwards.


****


> Indeed,
> It's more other people who are at loss explaining you the obvious.
>
> The standard theory is nice and elegant,
> Your "thing" is inadequate on all counts :
> It's impossible, it fails to account for data,
> It entails major theoretical absurdities.
> What else need be stated ?
> Maybe one thing,
> as you don't understand what you are doing,
> you probably won't change your mind.
>
> Arnaud

***

Patrick:

I have repeatedly asked for examples of words that the 'Laryngeal' Theory
reputedly explains better than the Vocalic Theory can.

You have provided nothing but empty generalities and personal insult.


***