----- 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@...>
> 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
> 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
> 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)?



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

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