Re: [tied] Re: the glottalic theory

On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

> [...]
> 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].

That's sophistery! What *can* it mean in sane terms? Is it any better than
Jakobson's "phonetically bu-bu (or whatever), phonemically mama"? Do you
call the -ng of English long /h/, just because it is never opposed to /h/?
Or worse, would you call them both /q/, just because none of them is ever
opposed to a uvular stop or to each other? What new frontiers will this
nonsense take us to?

Jens