Re: [tied] Re: Schwa (Was PIE Reconstruction)

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

From: david_russell_watson

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 5:17 PM

Subject: [tied] Re: Schwa (Was PIE Reconstruction)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@......>
wrote:
>
>   Would it not be better to call these phones coronals rather
> than dentals?

Why? Weren't most of their reflexes specifically
dental?

> To go by the articulatory (part of the) organ rather than the
> point of articulation?

Do you mean you prefer to name the sounds after
the lower articulator rather than the upper?

> Similarly, dorsals rather than velars or palatals.

Well 'dorsal' alone won't do in place of 'velar'
and 'palatal', which make a two-way distinction.
You need at least 'antero-dorsal' and 'postero-
dorsal', and 'labio-(postero-)dorsal' besides,
to serve in place of 'labio-velar'. 

It's difficult to see what advantage is gained.

David


***

Patrick:

 

We really do not know if  PIE *d was dental or alveolar as far as point of articulation was concerned.

 

Therefore, speaking generally, I think coronal is more accurate.

 

You say that Sihler, who is certainly no slouch, does not use velar as so many do - but dorsal. Is his usage such a bad example?

 

 

 

 

 

Patrick