----- Original Message -----
From: "etherman23" <etherman23@...>
To: <nostratic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 12:41 PM
Subject: [nostratic] Re: Vocalic Theory ('Laryngeal' Theory)


--- In nostratic@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.

In order for your theory to replace the Laryngeal Theory it has to be
a better theory. It thus has to explain more than the Laryngeal
Theory. What is the Vocalic Theory explanation for the triple
representation of schwa in Greek (and to a lesser extent Armenian)?


***

Patrick:

I cannot say I agree with your first premise.

I have given what I believe are insurmountable objections to the 'Laryngeal
Theory' as presently formulated (primarily, phonological); and no similar
objections have been raised against the Vocalic Theory.

I would say, at the moment, it is the "better" theory for that reason if no
other.

As for schwa in Greek, give me concrete examples of what you want to
explain; and I will try.



***