Re: [tied] Re: the glottalic theory

On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 00:13:48 +0100 (MET), Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
<jer@...> wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>
>> [...]
>> In the labials, the gap (if any) is usually in the voiceless sphere
>> ([ph], [p'], [p] missing), while in the velars/uvulars it's usually in
>> the voiced sphere ([G], [g] missing).  I see no reason to think it
>> would different for pre-glottalized plosives.
>
>I'm not so sure. Ejectives are practically always voiceless, while
>implosives are voiced.

Yes. That's why ['b] is rather common compared to rare ['g], while
[p'] is rather rare compared to relatively common [k']/[q'].

>When I once tried to check up on it, the bible of
>the day, the UPSID index, had no record at all of the existence of an
>implosive voiced labiovelar anywhere in the world. And under at least one
>theory, that is what PIE *gW was now supposed to be. This made the
>glottalic theory look pretty bad even on the surface.

If ['g] is rare, ['gW] must be rarer.

The *b gap and the non-existence in UPSID of ['gW] indicate that if
the glottalic theory is corrrect, the sounds in question must have
been voiceless ejectives, not voiced implosives. That's to say at the
_phonetic_ level, not necessarily the _phonological_ level. We may
have had /t/, /'d/, /dh/ realized as fortis [t:], ejective [t'] (or
preglottalzied [?t]), aspirated [th].

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...