Re: Vocalic Theory ('Laryngeal' Theory)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:

>
> I have made several additions to http://geocities.com/proto-
> language/OneLaryngealVocalicTheory.htm of a minor variety.
>
> In response to my challenge to list-members to critique the
> Vocalic Theory, I received two major responses:
>
> 1) Miguel chose to interpret my challenge as a call to show
> what the standard 'Laryngeal Theory' _could_ explain but the
> Vocalic Theory could not.
>
> After several inappropriate examples, he withdrew without
> final comment from the discussion. In my opinion, his point
> was not sustained.

Something for you to think about:

I haven't cleaned up my neighbor's yard for him, not because
I don't find it a pigsty and an eyesore, but because

(1) it would involve hard work better put into some projects
of my own,

(2) he wouldn't be at all grateful, but would just scream at
me for coming into his yard, and

(3) he would in very short time have created another mess as
bad, if not worse, than the first.

I've had to learn to look away from my neighbor's yard as my
only recourse, and likewise if Miguel and Rick have made any
mistake it was probably in responding to you at all.

> 2) Rick chose to misinterpret what Miguel had written, and
> hectored me for statements I had not made. His input was a
> personal attack rather than a critique, and proved nothing.

Don't you just hate when people do that?

> I had hoped Piotr or Richard would critique it since I would
> prefer to be shown that the Vocalic Theory were wrong rather
> than have it survive unexamined.

Would it be surprising if they were reluctant to do so, after
seeing how you treat others who dared criticize your theories?

> I extend my challenge to the Nostratic lists. Surely there must
> be some dyed-in-the-wool 'laryngealists' who reject my Vocalic
> Theory absolutely.
>
> Let us hear from you; and why.
>
> In the meantime, I have learned that Bomhard and Manaster-Ramer
> have adopted approaches that are similar in some respects to
> those advocated in the Vocalic Theory.

Yes, the field of Nostratics is in very poor shape indeed, as
most of us already realize.

> I do not wish to "win" by default so touché!

Don't worry, you haven't. To win you would need a significant
number of informed linguists to have accepted the validity of
your ideas, which, of course, hasn't happened. Actually, can
you name even one who takes you seriously?

All you've done is to show us how a light-complexioned man can
be equated with a nut.

David