Re: Retroflex Consonants in P.I.E. (was [tied] Re: A New language t

----- Original Message -----

From: david_russell_watson

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 3:47 PM

Subject: Retroflex Consonants in P.I.E. (was [tied] Re: A New language tree)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@......>
wrote:
>
> I forgot to recognize the one pont Kazanas made with which I can
> agree.
>
> He asserted that Old Indian cerebrals/retroflex consonants were
> once a part of PIE.
>
> Actually, I think this very likely although no trace of them exists
> outside of India.
>
> I believe the retroflex consonants (apicals) originated as apicals
> followed by *o or by *WV in pre-PIE.

David wrote:

Retroflexion occurs in Sanskrit words of Indo-European origin
under clear and well defined conditions:  In the Satem group
reflexes of Proto-Indo-European alveolar *s and *z assumed a
backed pronunciation (either palatal, pre-palatal, or post-
alveolar) when immediately following *r, *w, *c^, *k, or *j
(RUKI Rule). In Indo-Aryan, under the influence of substrates
in the subcontinent, these two sounds assumed a retroflex
pronunciation, and subsequently any immediately following *t,
*d, or *dh was itself assimilated to that position. Finally,
all voiced fricatives were eliminated in Indo-Aryan, including
the retroflex. Check the etymology of a few words containing
retroflexes for yourself, and you will see that most instances
of retroflex 't' follow a retroflex 's', and most instances
of reteroflex 'd' or 'dh' historically followed a *z.  

The rules for the change of dental 'n' to retroflex 'n' are
more complex and would be more time-consuming to explain here,
but they apply no less automatically. 

So you can see that Indo-Aryan retroflexion affected any and
every Proto-Indo-European *s, *z, *st, *zd, or *zdh following 
RUKI, regardless of what may have followed in pre-PIE or even
PIE. In Sanskrit an immediately following 'r' can block the
retroflexion of 's', but that's a different matter and doesn't
ascend to P.I.E., as evidenced by Avestan where it doesn't
apply. 

If P.I.E. or pre-P.I.E. ever had a retroflex series, it has
disappeared without a trace, or at least the retroflex series
of Indo-Aryan is no result of it.  

***

Patrick writes:

 

Thank you for your comments and valuable observations.

 

I am afraid I have to touch on Nostratic to even explain my reasons so please bear with me.

 

The last time I checked, Bomhard did not reconstruct retroflex articulation for Nostratic. Instead, he posited laterals for Nostratic that developed into retroflex articulations in Proto-Dravidian and also certain positions of stops, e.g. between vowels.

 

I find consdierable problems with his reconstructions, and have written an extensive critique of them at

 

http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/NostraticDictionary.htm

 

for whatever interest there may be in Bomhard's methods. Even though he is self-published, he is published.

 

In my own Nostratic reconstructions, I thought I observed a pattern that where an apical (or coronal) was followed by Nostratic *o, Semitic responded with a retroflex (emphatic). The same situation seemed to obtain in Proto-Dravidian. Just as I found, I think, that dorsals before Nostratic *e were palatalized in IE.

 

If one has a method to determine Nostratic vowel qualities, this seems to work out fairly well.

 

Now, before proceeding, I do not understand how alveolar *s and *z can be said to be backed if the "backed" position is palatal or pre-palatal. I could easily accept "post-aveolar". 

 

I also do not doubt that adjacent retroflexes can influence other primarily apicals move to a backed position.

 

I think retroflexes in Dravidian and emphatic articulations in Semitic are probably the two results of the same process; and since I think Semitic and PIE are a lot more closely related than many people do, it is only natural to suspect that PIE went through a period of apical retroflexion (or, at least significant backing) while it still retained Nostratic *o or even after *o was replaced by a glide: *WV,

 

I myself see no evidence in PIE for this one-time state of affairs (if it existed), and I would not be unduly troubled to substitute a very backed position for retroflexion in PIE.

 

Not knowing more about Sanskrit than I do, I also suspected that some retroflexion was inherited. I also have no doubt that substrate languages either initiated retroflexion in some cases, or if there is a shred of reality in what I suspect, re-inforced their continuation.

  
We all know that retroflexion is a notable characteristic of Dravidian so that any retroflexion in Sanskrit was probably viewed somewhat suspiciously as a mark of low register.

That could account for a gradual elimination of originally inherited retroflexes - if their was such a phenomenon. With Semitic, it would take a lot more to sway me from my position.

 

By the way, why not call it RUČKI? I would bet the Slavicists on the list would appreciate that.

 

Patrick

***
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Has someone you know been affected by illness or disease?
Network for Good is THE place to support health awareness efforts!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RzSHvD/UOnJAA/79vVAA/GP4qlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    cybalist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/