From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 58585
Date: 2008-05-18
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
>> 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:
> 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.
>
> ***
Analyzing e: as eH1 is standard,
I did not invent it,
I just think it's right.
The criterion I describe has been standard phonology for years.
Gleason, 1966, An introduction to Descriptive Linguistics,
The English Vowel System p28
"This closely knit of sequence of phonemes must sometimes be studied as a
single unit. We will call it a syllable nucleus, since it serves as the
center of a syllable. A syllable nucleus will be defined as a vowel, or a
vowel and a following semivowel."
Gleason then proceeds with examples.
In other words, /a/ /e/ /i/ /o/ /u/ /V/ (but) and /aj/ /ow/ /aw/ are
phonemes in English because they appear in any context including C_nC.
On the contrary, in PIE, e: a: o: are not syllable nuclei.
they do not appear in all phonological contexts.
Only short *e and *o are syllable nuclei
and these syllable nuclei can appear in any contexts including C_HC.
There is no C_HnC because this breaks up into TWO syllables.
This is Trubetzkoy's three rules :
- restriction in membership
- restriction in sequence of members
- restriction in number of members.
This enables us to conclude that neither e: nor a: nor o: are PIE vocalic
phonemic units.
They count for vowel plus Consonant H.
And something like Ce:n.C is Ce#Hn.#C
You are knocking your head against a wall of phonological obviousness.
Arnaud
==============
> ***
>
> Patrick:
>
> I have never suggested that a vowel feature transmutes into a consonantal
> feature; you are and you have it backwards.
> >
> ****
>
You stated that in previous recent mails.
Arnaud
=========
>
>> 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 repeatedly got(ten) what you asked for,
But you do not understand what you are explained to,
Even examples in your own mother language English do not help.
Arnaud