There have been some byways (e.g. the abortive proposal of an H₄ to account for the phenomenon of a lack of h in Hittite in the position of an expected laryngeal although a laryngeal is normally represented by Hittite h/hh in most proposed positions) but this is essentially the "Laryngeal Theory".


The first thing to be noticed is that, in this theory, o: has two different sources: it is the result of eH₃C; and, it is the result of oH_1,2,3C. Life cannot always be reduced to edle Einfalt much as Goethe might have wished but this jars slightly. Apparently all three laryngeals have, in common, the power to lengthen but only two have the power to "color".

In addition, although there are phones that can influence the acoustic quality of an adjacent vowel, e.g. lower it, phones that can front or back a vowel (or both!) are typologically rare if existent — unless one assumes glides. But then it would not be the characteristics of the laryngeal that "colored" an e to o but rather the velar glide (^w).

For these and other reasons, I devised a method of explaining these phenomena that I believe is simpler and does not have the inherent contradictions of the present theory.

I suggest that Earliest Indo-European had two original vowels, e and o, which were grammatically conditioned allophones of an undetermined theoretical vowel, which I designate as (V), which corresponds to the feature identified in the pioneering work of Winfred P. Lehmann as "syllabicity" (Lehmann 1955:112ff.) — and three long vowels: e:, a:, and o:.

The "vowels" i and u are not original vowels but the result of reductions of y and w in avocalic positions; and this is substantiated by their representation in Afrasian cognates as y or w and their failure to participate in apophonic grammatical variation³.

This also explains why i and u never occur as syllabic nuclei outside of zero-grade accentual positions.

In full-grade stress-accented positions, therefore, in the absence of a "laryngeal", only e and o could appear in a root — with or without non-syllabic -i or -u — which vowel being determined grammatically, not out of lexical considerations.

Late Nostratic, the parent of Indo-European and Afrasian, had four "laryngeals": two laryngals, ? and h; and two pharyngals: ¿ and H (Arabic dotted h). To these four, the inclusive term "laryngeals" may be inaccurately but conveniently assigned. Earliest Indo-European reduced these four "laryngeals" (laryngals and pharyngals) to two laryngals, /?/ from ? and ¿; and /h/ from h and H.





The distinction between earliest Indo-European ? and h is
that ? appears in Hittite as Ø
while h is seen in Hittite as h/hh.





The earliest Indo-European root initials ?/ha, ?/he, and ?/ho were transformed into Early Indo-European a:, e:, and o: by the well-known process of compensatory lengthening when ?/h was lost. Because these were long vowels, their distinctive vocalic timbres were preserved; and they escaped the normal stress-accent-induced apophonic grammatical alternation of non-lengthened (short) vowels that was introduced in Early Indo-European. The earliest Indo-European root finals a?/h, e?/h, and o?/h were transformed into Early Indo-European a:, e:, and o: by the well-known process of compensatory lengthening when ?/h was lost. Because these were long vowels, their distinctive vocalic timbres were preserved; and they escaped the normal stress-accent-induced apophonic grammatical alternation of non-lengthened (short) vowels that was introduced in Early Indo-European.







In a C(V)e:/a:/o: root (i.e. after a non-laryngeal initial), it is not the root vowel ((V)) which has been "colored" and lengthened and preserved but it is rather the quality of the vowel which preceded the (earliest Indo-European) laryngeal which is being preserved: e:, a: or o:. Therefore, it is not necessary to assume that the "laryngeals" "color" any vowel.




One way to summarize all this is to say that Late Nostratic had three vowels: ^(y)e, a, and ^(w)o; and four "laryngeals" (?, h, ¿, H). Earliest Indo-European had three vowels: ^(y)e, a, and ^(w)o; and two "laryngeals" (? and h). Early Indo-European had two short vowels: e and o, grammatically determined allophones of a theoretical (V); and three long vowels: e:, a:, and o:; subsequently, Indo-European lost the glides in most dialects, leaving only palatalized dorsals as an indication of the former presence of the ^y-glide.

NOTATIONAL CONVENTIONS

Afrasian

Egyptian



p, f, d, t, k, T(bar-t)

w, z, s, S(hook-s), X(bar-h)

b, D(bar-d), ', H(dot-h), x(hook-h)

m, n, q(dot-k), g

3, r

j, h









Arabic



b, d, dh, f, j, gh, t, th, k, kh

D(dot-d), T(dot-t), Z(dot-z), S(dot-s)

z, s, sh

r, l

m, n, q(dot-k, velar k)

y, ?, h, ¿ (¿ain), H(dot-h, He:)

the latest revision of this document can be found at

HTTP://WWW.GEOCITIES.COM/proto-language/c-AFRASIAN-3_laryngeal.htm

Patrick C. Ryan * 9115 West 34th Street - Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 * (501)227-9947 PROTO-LANGUAGE@msn.com

2. This triad is a result of the situation in Late Nostratic, which had only syllables of the types C^y(V), C^w(V), and C(V) (which had developed out of even earlier Nostratic Ce, Co, and Ca) and long vowels. When (V) began to be treated apophonically, the laryngals had already disappeared, having already lengthened the vowels that followed them.

The pattern of glide occurrence served as the model for the apophonic triad: e ( = ^y), o ( = ^w), and Ø ( = ^a) in Indo-European, and the Semitic triad: i, a, and u.

The only "proof" of the period of glides and "syllabicity" is the retention of palatalized dorsals in the satem branch of Indo-European and the fact of apophony itself. This palatalization was occasioned not by apophonic e but rather by the glide (^y) that reflects an Early Nostratic e.

3. This is analogous to the situation in Arabic where i, a, and u can appear anywhere in the triliteral root but ê, â, and ô only appear when i, a, and u are combined with y and w.

4. This essay has been superseded by: