Re: [tied] Re: crows and the glottalic theory

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 6:44 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: crows and the glottalic theory


On Thu, 07 Nov 2002 14:33:09 -0000, "Richard Wordingham"
<richard.wordingham@...> wrote:

<snip>

>) 0 (as in Armenian) is best understood if *p was [ph] in
pre-Proto-Celtic. Old Welsh and Irish use the spelling <p>, <t>, <c>
for /b/, /d/, /g/, which is nothing strange in a two-way opposition
/t/ = [th] ~ /d/ = [d.] ~ [t]

(cf. also English, where initial and
final /d/ are voiceless [d.] ~ [t]).

The two-way opposition was the
result of a merger of *d ([t']) and *dh ([d]), but a word like <teng>
"tongue" (with *d -> *t) is perhaps a leftover from a time when the
Celtic stop system was more like that of Germanic.

[PCR]
Dear Miguel and others:

Speaking only for American English, of which I am a native speaker, both initial and final /d/ are voiced in all dialects known to me.

Where did you get such information?

Pat