Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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

From:Joe <joe@...>
Date:Saturday, July 5, 2003, 6:34
----- 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...