Re: [tied] *h3 (More deja-vu)

Would that not demand that *h1 be intervocalic-only?

Jens

On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:

> There is no such thing as a voiced glottal stop, by the way. The vocal
> folds can't make an occlusion and vibrate at the same time. A
> laryngealised (creaky-voiced) glottal approximant (transcribed [*] by
> Ladefoged and Maddieson and defined as "diminution of energy between
> adjacent vowels") would however be another imaginable realisation of
> *h1. My only objection to such a reconstruction is that we'd have to
> think of a different symbol to replace L&M's asterisk :)
>
> Piotr
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: P&G
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 5:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [tied] *h3 (More deja-vu)
>
>
> >>we have *d > *h1
> > >and *h1k > g, which is more readily explained by /?/.
> >
> > So... maybe *h1 was a voiced glottal stop.
>
> No, it doesn't have to be. The glottalic theory fits neatly here. If the "voiced" consonants of PIE were in fact pre-glottalised, then a combination of ? + voiceless consonant would become very similar to its voiced equivalent. So h1k > g works well. If ....!
>