Just responding to the points raised so far, broken down
into the following three categories:
On the character of *h1
Voicing of *h3
The uvularity of *kW
On the character of *h1
-----------------------
In Proto-Steppe (ancestral to Uralic, IE, Eskimo-Aleut and
Altaic), I see justification for only one aspirate *h.
The common pattern observable from this stage to that of
IndoTyrrhenian (or "PreIE" if one must) is that the
roundness of *u in an initial syllable was transfered to
the consonant as the vowel system was becoming centralized:
Steppe IndoTyrrhenian
*ku > *kW&
*ki > *k&
*ka > *ka
This seems clear enough to anyone delving into Nostratic
studies and it is the origin for all labialized consonants
in Indo-European whether we are speaking of *kW or even of
*hW (*h3). So both *h2 and *h3 ultimately derive from
Proto-Steppe *h and *h1 derives from something else.
Now, *h1 derives from Proto-Steppe *? and since *h2 and
*h3 must derive from *h already, I don't see why we should
conclude that initial *h1 was *[?] in some cases and *[h].
Plus, as Jens remarks justly, it is logically uneconomical
to begin with.
To me, the solution is simple. In initial position, *h1
was *[?] and mediofinally it was *[h], thereby satisfying
everybody's inquietudes. It is the fact that mediofinal
*h1 softened from *[?] to *[h] in Mid IE which is what
caused the compensatory lowering of *h2 to uvular *[h.]
in the first place.
I refuse to entertain idle associations with Proto-Semitic
laryngeals to gain any insight. This is a red herring. It
is clear to anyone with a grain of reasoning that there
must surely be a good ten thousand years of seperation
between Semitic and IE. Indo-Semitic comparisons should be
left in the 19th century where they belong and if Miguel
wishes to live in that century, I'd be more than happy to
fund the research in time travel to get him there :)
Voicing of *h3
--------------
Hmm, my arguement against *h3 being voiced on grounds of
markedness was completely ignored. There are few if
any examples that can possibly, if not convincingly,
prove voicing of *h3. Yet even so, the idea itself is
fundamentally flawed. So I continue to wonder how Jens
can argue against this point.
The uvularity of *kW
--------------------
I stated that *kW was not uvular in Indo-European (at
least in the latest stage of IE) whereupon Miguel
produced counterexamples such as *kWasyo- and *(s)kWalo-
that appear to prove me wrong... They don't at all.
The association between uvular phonemes and lowering
effects on *e have been raised previously. I've concluded
up to now that *q (traditional "unpalatal" *k) does
indeed lower *e to *a just as the uvular *h2 does the same.
I haven't seen any instances of **qe either.
With *kW, we know very well that there are a plethora
of examples of *kW beside *e (*kWesyo, *kWer-, *sekW-,
etc) showing quite clearly that *kW either doesn't
lower *e consistently or it doesn't lower *e at all.
Further, we also know that there are other factors that
cause *a besides uvularity, otherwise we are hard-pressed
to explain *gHansr "goose"... Oh, perhaps plain *gH is
uvular too, Miguel? Perhaps all IE phonemes are uvular
and perhaps IE speakers choked on every syllable.
So I rest my case: There is no distinct uvular *kW in IE.
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:
http://mobile.msn.com