--- In cybalist@..., Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen <jer@...> wrote:
> They remain as weak spots at the least. In Sanskrit /th/ is
markedly less
> common than any of the other dentals. This in itself appears to be
enough
> for many to arouse suspicion; such suspicion, however, can only
apply to
> the age of the /th/, not to its presence in the language which is
above
> dispute.
I am not sure that the infrequency actually means anything in
itself. There is a non-IE parallel. Thai spelling reflects the
proto-Tai t ~ d ~ th ~ ?d distinction, and the reflexes of the
ancient /th/ are also markedly less common than the reflexes of the
other dentals. The effect can be seen in both ordinary dictionaries
and in Li's Handbook of Comparative Thai, where the lists of
correspondences for the voiceless aspirates (labial,
dental, 'palatal' and velar) are very short. (Or is there something
peculiar about *th in proto-Tai?) Indeed, the same pattern goes for
English <th> compared to <t> and <d>.
Richard.