The palatal sham :) (Re: [tied] Re: Albanian (1))
--- In email@example.com
, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> The point is whether it makes sense for a language to have a
> /tx/ > /th/ (and sometimes /dx/ > /dh/) without having at the same
> /tG/ > /dh/ (/dG/ > /dh/), especially if we consider that /dh/ was
> extremely common phoneme in that language.
It is not for us to prescribe what a language should do in its
Still, I think it makes excellent sense to assume that [tx] or [tX]
(X for uvular/pharyngeal) yields [th], and that [tGW] (labiovelar)
or [tRW] (labiouvular or labiopharyngeal) takes on voicing to yield
[d(..)], especially if [xt]/[Xt] acts like [ht] in producing [th],
while [GWt] does not change. I see nothing odd in a change of a
velar or postvelar voiceless fricative to a simple aspiration, or in
simple loss of its voiced counterpart. The Lautverschiebung product
of IE /k/ yielded aspiration in Germanic, its Verner variant did not.