Re: [tied] Re: the glottalic theory

It sounds to me like the prestage of PIE to which the glottalic theory
refers, and for which I suppose it is correct. Thank you for the most
valuable reference.

Jens

On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:

> 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].
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>