Re: Vocalic Theory ('Laryngeal' Theory)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick McCallister" <gabaroo6958@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 11:29 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] RE: Vocalic Theory ('Laryngeal' Theory)


>
> --- Patrick Ryan <proto-language@...> wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Rick McCallister" <gabaroo6958@...>
> > To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 9:55 PM
> > Subject: Re: [tied] RE: Vocalic Theory ('Laryngeal'
> > Theory)
> >
> > > --- etherman23 <etherman23@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan"
> > > > <proto-language@...> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > It's clear that there are so many exceptions
> > that
> > > the rule can't
> > > > possibly be true.
> > >
> > > This is the kind of problem that emerges when your
> > > rely on a priori "knowledge" (i.e. assumptions)
> > rather
> > > than a posteriori empiricism. See Willard Van
> > Orman
> > > Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism." Ray, Piotr,
> > David,
> > > Torsten and everyone else have shown a posteriori
> > > empirical evidence that contradicts the a priori
> > > assumption. To remain credible, you'll have to
> > change
> > > the paradigm.
> >
> > ***
> >
> > Patrick:
> >
> > Generalizations like the above mean next to nothing.
> >
> > If you dispute my claim for defining root-form,
> > provide an example or two
> > that negates it.
> >
> >
> > ***
> Our colleagues already have. *kredh- is CCVCC- and
> does not correspond to your CV-, CVC, CVCC- paradigm
> My comment is meant as advice, not as an insult.
> It is excellent advice for everyone on the list, and
> most people follow it most of the time.
> But read Quine, he was from Brian's present stomping
> grounds and I imagine that, as a mathematician,
> Brian's very well acquainted with him. I actually use
> Quine in literary theory to talk about the poetics of
> organic verse and its function as a meme-delivery device.

***

Patrick:

You write as if that someone mentioned something proves it.

I am sure you remember the long controversial discussions of this root.

In my opinion, it is a compound not a simple root per se consisting of

*k^Ar- + *dh(A).

***