Re: Evidence for Nostratic? (was Re: Proto-Uralic?)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Haden" <magwich78@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 10:59 PM
Subject: Re: Evidence for Nostratic? (was Re: Proto-Uralic?)


> On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:56:20 +0200, =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg=20Rhiemeier?=
> <joerg_rhiemeier@...> wrote:
>
> >> Also, regarding Ablaut, my hypothesis is that most of the contrasts in
> >> vowel quality (e vs. o) were originally contrasts in tone.  It is well-
> >> noted that vowels did not undergo alternation in the presence of
> >> a "laryngeal" (?, h, x, etc.).
> >
> >They did, but *e became *a next to *h2 and *o next to *h3.
>
> I disagree with the current laryngeal theory.  I also reject the notion
> that PIE's vowel system was centered on [e].  Instead, I think that the
> Ablaut alternations came from [a], that is, a low-central unrounded vowel.
> This vowel was then fronted and raised when subject to a high tone, and
> backed and raised when subject to a low tone.  If this is true, then
> current laryngeal theory must be rejected, in favor of a new
> reconstruction: "h2" was [h] or [x], and "h3" was likely a labialized
> variation of "h2" (akin to plain velar stops vs. labialized velar stops).
> There was also "h1" which supposedly only lengthened the vowel, and thus
> was likely [h], making "h2" [x] and "h3" [xW].
Why do you disagree with the current laryngeal theory, then? I see very
little wrong with the way it is...