Intensive Reduplication

[Patrick C. Ryan]

Dear Peter and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: petegray <petegray at btinternet.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 1999 2:52 PM

> If we then limit ourselves to IE evidence, and produce cases where
> consonants are necessary rather than vowels, would that do?

> I offered a long list of possible places where laryngeals, if present, would
> have to be consonants.   Your counter-arguments so far reduce to:  "there
> are no laryngeals involved."   This is in fact not a counter-argument to the
> claim that "if there are laryngeals involved here, they must have been
> consonants, not vowels."

Pat responds:

I do not believe that is a fair characterization of my views.You produced a
list, and we discussed at some length one or two of the items on it.

In the last communication on the subject, I asked you to choose among the
remaining phenomena you attribute to consonantal laryngeals, and we would
discuss that. I believe it is counterproductive to attempt to discuss a
large number proposals simultaneously.

Actually, if I had to summarize my argument against the consonantal nature
of laryngeals in IE (except Hittite), I would say that the phenomena are
reconstructable in terms of lengthened vowels so the presumption is that
they were lengthened vowels, and the burden of proof is on those who propose
their consonantal nature *in IE*.

Pat

PATRICK C. RYAN (501) 227-9947; FAX/DATA (501)312-9947 9115 W. 34th St.
Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803 and PROTO-RELIGION:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/indexR.html "Veit
ek, at ek hekk, vindga meipi, nftr allar nmu, geiri undapr . . . a ~eim
meipi er mangi veit hvers hann af rstum renn." (Havamal 138)