[tied] Re: The phonlogical identity of IE "y"

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "P&G" <G&P@...> wrote:

>
> > > There was a comparison to the
> > > Esquimo-Aleut "edh" sound (voiced thorn) to the IE "y",...
> > A change from {dh} to j is
> > not uncommon, nor is {dh} > z (> s).
>
> Is there an assumption that the Esquimo-Aleut "edh" is identical

to, or

> descended from a pre-PIE **dh? If so, should we gently ask if the

question

> about what the PIE *dh actually was, has been overlooked?
> We cannot assume any phonological equivalence between Esquimo-

Aleut

> "edh", and PIE *dh.

My assumption was that the Esk.-Al. number markers which are /-{gh}/
for the dual and /-{dh}/ for the plural, are valid for IE also. I
therefore imagine that some such prestage as Proto-Eurasiatic had
dual /-{gh}/ and plural /-{dh}/ which have remained almost unchanged
in Eskimo, and have been processed by later phonological rules in
IE. These consonants were voiced spirants, and the matter has
nothing to do with the PIE voiced aspirated stop *dh.

Jens