Re: Vocalic Theory ('Laryngeal' Theory)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 11:34 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] RE: Vocalic Theory ('Laryngeal' Theory)


>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
> To: "Patrick Ryan" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 10:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [tied] RE: Vocalic Theory ('Laryngeal' Theory)
>
>
> > At 10:11:29 AM on Wednesday, June 11, 2008, Patrick Ryan
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I have made several additions to
> >
> > > http://geocities.com/proto-language/OneLaryngealVocalicTheory.htm
> >
> > > of a minor variety.
> >
>
> <. . .>
>
> > I did happen to notice this bit of fudge:
> >
> > > Thus, a PIE root like *pel-, which appears in these
> > > different forms: *ple:-, *pla:-, *plo:- — these forms are
> > > presumed by the 'laryngealists' to be caused by the
> > > addition of a following H1, H2, or H3 to *plé.
> >
> > > This seems a real oddity: the addition of the 'laryngeals'
> > > under apparently identical phonotaxis produces three
> > > lexically different roots: *1. ple:-, 'pour'; *2. a.
> > > pla:-, 'put in motion by pushing or beating'; and *9.
> > > plo:-, 'burn'.
> >
> > It is clearly inaccurate to speak of *pel- as a single root
> > appearing in different forms. It's also incorrect to speak
> > of *adding* the laryngeals: they are intrinsic parts of the
> > roots reconstructed with them.
>
> ***
>
> I never seem to be able to communicate this very simple principle to some
> people:
>
> PIE roots are either CV or CVC(V). There are no exceptions.
>
> *ple:- is *C(V)CVH. *C(V)CV is the root. *H is obviously an additional
> formant forming a stem.
>
> If the laryngealists are right...
>
> I believe, instead, that the three came into PIE as *pAle:-, *pAla:-, and
> *pAlo:-, with _naturally long_ final vowels which Piotr assures me
> occurred in PIE (if not in these words).
>
>
> ***
>
>
>
>
> > > How much more straightforward it seems to assume that we
> > > are dealing with three different roots, which in pre-PIE
> > > had the forms: *pÁle:-/*pAlé:-, *pÁla:-/*pAlá:-, and
> > > *pÁlo:-/*pAló:-; and that the final vowel differentiated
> > > them lexically.
> >
> > This is obviously no more straightforward than assuming
> > three distinct roots, *pleh1-, *pleh2-, and *pleh3-,
> > differentiated by distinct final consonants.
> >
> > Brian
>
> ***
>
> *pA-le:, two syllables, vs. *p(V)-le-H1(V), three syllables.
>
>
>
> ***


***

Patrick:

I should have also pointed out that that is not even the worst of it.

for *pla:- and *plo:- the poor 'laryngealists' need to reconstruct

*pAlH2éH1- and *PAlH3éH1- !!!

four consonants for a root???? Give me a break.



***