[tied] Re: the glottalic theory

Bible or no bible, voiced implosive labiovelars do exist, e.g. in Ega
(a virtual isolate, putatively placed in Kwa):

"The consonant system contains a full series of unvoiced, voiced
(voiced fortis) and implosive (voiced lenis) stops: labial, dental,
palatal, velar, labiovelar."

http://www.spectrum.uni-
bielefeld.de/BEST/Research/TAPS/GutAdouakouGibbon.pdf

Doesn't it sound a bit like PIE? It's a pity my source doesn't report
a labial gap.

Piotr

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


> >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].