Fwd: Re: [tied] PIE laringeals

How do all these sounds fit into PIE phonotactics?
Another thing, I can't work out how these fricatives (back, and maybe
even low) could yield an 'i' in indo-iranian, corresponding to 'a' in
other language groups, when vocalised.
As for BSl., they (or at least their reflex) must have been somehow
similar to PIE voiced (glottalised?) plosives, as they excerted the
same effect - i.e. the 'acute' intonation, whatever it may have been.
David


--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "aquila_grande" <aquila_grande@...>
wrote:

In many european languages, an uvular spirant (uvular r, unvoised
uvular spirant) colours the e into a. I therefor tink h2 likly was
an uvular spirant. A rounded uvular spirant would likely produce an
o-colouring and hence be h3.

But also a rounded voiced pharyngeal spirant is likely to give an o-
colouring.

I don't think roundedness was decisive. Why didn't the other rounded
consonants produce such colouring then?

Then h1 would likely be a h-sound. (A glottal or pharyngeal
approximant/spirant)


--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@>
wrote:

>
> On 2006-04-19 22:23, David Mandic wrote:
>
> > What theories are there about the phonetic value of the PIE

laryngeals?

> > I've read somewhere they might have been pronounced as x', x and

xw

> > respectively (to fit into the pattern set by k', k and kw etc.).
> > However, it doesn't seem plausible to me - if xw turned e into

o, why

> > didn't kw or gw?
>
> This objection has often been raised and is certainly valid.
>
> > According to me, h1 could have been a glottal stop,
> > since it didn't affect a flanking e (excluding the lengthening),

and

> > disappeared early, even in Anatolian.
>
> It's probably the majority view at present that *h1 was some kind

of

> glottal sound. When not vocalised, it seems to have had an

aspirating

> effect on a following (sic) stop in PIE, though the details of the
> process are not entirely clear yet, which would favour a glottal
> approximant/fricative [h] over a glottal stop [?]. However, it's

hard to

> rule out the possibility that the reconstruction *h1 covers two
> different but hard-to-distinguish PIE phonemes, */h/ and */?/.
>
> > H2 on the other hand might have
> > been a sort of pharyngeal.
>
> Yes, a back fricative, at any rate. Its main allophone was

voiceless,

> but the voicelessness doesn't seem to have been distinctive, as

*h2 did

> not participate in voice assimilation processes. Like *h1, it

could

> exert pre-aspirating influence on PIE stops. Its Indo-Iranian

reflex

> aspirated a _preceding_ stop (which indicates an /h/-like

pronunciation

> at that stage).
>
> > As for h3, I've got no idea. Are there any
> > sounds which display similar effects on vowels in other

languages of the

> > world?
>
> You mean retraction and/or rounding? There is no shortage of

phonetic

> environments that might produce such coarticulatory effects. The
> influence of *h3 on _consonants_ is perhaps more enlightening,

since

> there is some decent evidence of voicing assimilation produced by

*h3,

> as in reduplicated *pí-[b]h3-e/o- and in some "Hoffmann compounds"

with

> final *-h3on-, such as *h2ap-h3on- > Celt. *abon-. It would be
> interesting to see if *s > *z before *h3. Unfortunately, PIE

basically

> excluded -es-stems as first members of compounds, so we would need

a

> root noun with final *-s before the Hoffmann element as a test

case, and

> I can't think of a good example at the moment.
>
> > And what about the reflexes of the laryngeals in Slavic and
> > Baltic - they also yielded prosodic (tonal) features.
>
> Yes, but these features don't distinguish the laryngeals, so they

are of

> little use in reconstructing the phonetic details you're

interested in.

>
> Piotr
>

--- End forwarded message ---