Glottalic theory (was: bidet)

From: Jörg Rhiemeier
Message: 70474
Date: 2012-11-18

Hallo Indo-Europeanists!

On Sunday 18 November 2012 14:04:36 Tavi wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <bm.brian@...> wrote:
> > At 5:16:09 AM on Tuesday, October 30, 2012,
> >
> > Bhrihskwobhloukstroy wrote:
> > > *paþa can (not: must) anyway have a good Germanic
> > > etymology, why should a borrowing be preferred? I hope not
> > > for the tale of the lack of PIE */b/, because this would
> > > be a circular argument
> >
> > No, it wouldn't. The rarity of PIE *b is sufficiently
> > well-established to carry some weight in a contest of
> > competing etymologies. How much weight, of course, is a
> > matter of opinion.
>
> According to the glottalic model and macro-comparative data, traditional
> PIE voiced stops (series II) weren't actually so but either glottalic or
> plain voiceless, whereas the *real* voiced were traditional "voiced
> aspirated" (series III).

Yes. While I think the traditional model describes the state of
affairs in Late PIE well, it is IMHO indeed quite likely that an
earlier stage of the language had a system like that posited by
Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, and, independently, by Hopper. An
intermediate stage may either have been a system of the Armenian
type (i.e., *t/t'/d > *th/t/d > *t/d/dh), or one in which the
ejectives had shifted to voiced implosives (as posited, if I am
not mistaken, by Kortlandt, i.e., *t/t'/d > *t/d'/d > *t/d/dh).
Perhaps the intermediate system was still in place in Early PIE
(i.e., when Anatolian branched off), and Hittite may have
preserved evidence (but I know too little about the intricacies
of cuneiform graphemics to have any opinion on what kind of stop
system Hittite had).

--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
[Language history web site under construction]