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

----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <Nostratic-L@yahoogroups.com>; "NOSTRATIC-E"
<nostratic@yahoogroups.com>; "NOSTRATICA" <mail@...>;
<MTLR@yahoogroups.com>; <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: [MTLR] RE: The Vocalic Theory (PIE *al-)


>
> ----- 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.

***

Patrick:

Mauvais, mauvais.

PIE *e: is produced by a theoretical *eH1. *e: = *e + *e; *eH1 = *e + *H1.

Your misunderstanding the simplest matters is, de facto, invention.

***



> 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
>
>
>
>