--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:
>
> We really do not know if PIE *d was dental or alveolar as far
> as point of articulation was concerned.
Their reflexes are dental in the modern Iranian languages,
in the modern Indo-Aryan languages (except where retroflex),
in the Romance, and in Greek. Isn't it most likely therefore
that *t, *d, *dh, and *n were also dental? (I'm less certain
about *l.)
> Therefore, speaking generally, I think coronal is more accurate.
Surely, when there's uncertainty about the exact position,
the inclusive term should be used, which is one matter,
but not a matter really effecting choice of upper or lower
articulator in describing phones. We could, for example,
use Catford's 'dentalveolar' instead of 'coronal', which
covers both dental and alveolar positions.
So I still wonder why you ask if it isn't "better" to use
such lower-articulator terms as 'coronal' and 'dorsal' in
preference to 'dentalveolar' and 'velar'.
> 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?
Well, all else the same, I don't suppose it matters whether
the upper articulator involved, or the lower, is chosen to
refer to a phone, although in either case it's still often
necessary to note both articulators, such as when speaking
of the retroflexes (apico-alveolar).
However, you do acknowledge, do you not, that 'dorsal' alone
could never serve the discussion of P.I.E., which had three
distinct dorsal series? As I said, it would be necessary to
use such terms as 'antero-dorsal', which are longer and less
familiar than the traditional terminology, and so all else
is not quite the same.
David