Re: Vocalic Theory ('Laryngeal' Theory)

----- Original Message -----
From: "etherman23" <etherman23@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 3:56 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] RE: Vocalic Theory ('Laryngeal' Theory)


--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "etherman23" <etherman23@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 9:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [tied] RE: Vocalic Theory ('Laryngeal' Theory)
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@>
> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> How do you figure?
>
> *pleH2 > *pla:
> *pleH3 > *plo:
>
>
>
>
> ***
>
> Patrick:
>
> I am under the impression that standard 'laryngeal' theory
distinguishes
> between 'laryngeals' which precede the vowel and color it; and those
which
> follow the vowel and lengthen it.
>
> Is this not correct?

Laryngeals following a vowel color and lengthen it (or in the case of
*o just lengthen it).


***

Patrick:

The version of the 'laryngeal' theory to which you subscribe is fine with
me.

Now, let us return to root-form.


***