Re: Lenis and Fortis.

I admit complete inability to make sense of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov's system (as laid out in their opus magnum), and in particular of positing variable aspiration in the first and third series of stops.

 

I have not read their magnum opus, and this is a work low down on my list of want-to-reads. If you cannot make heads or tails of it, I feel better. Some of this is quite obscure.

 

Beekes' system is a well-known alternative to analysing the middle series as voiced stops. To be sure, can't see how ejectives (or glottalised voiceless stops) can be regarded as lenis. An ejective is pronounced with the simultaneuos glottal and oral closure. Then the closed glottis moves up and compresses the air between the two closures to produce a sharp puff upon the release of the stop. In terms of the fortis/lenis distinction this is the very epitome of fortis, like the aspiration of voiceless stops.

 

The fortis/lenis contrast became important in all the branches which introduced emphatic stress contrasts (Germanic, Celtic, early Italic); such languages also typically show a preference for initial stress). But Classical Greek and Sanskrit, despite having voiceless /th/ etc., depended on voicing and aspiration as distinctive features. Unlike English, they had no strength contrast between /t/ and /d/. In my opinion, PIE contrasts were of a similar kind.

 

Interesting. I've learned a little more. I'm still assimilating the other data on stress which you've posted. Some of what you've said has suddenly made passages in my books clearer. What's bizarre -- or rather, what should be bizarre -- is the fact we can speak in such detail about a language no one has heard spoken for at least 4,500 years, and which has left no written traces whatsoever. What really is bizarre is that we are interested in such things, and for all the efforts expended, you wonder what of what use this knowledge is. Nonetheless, I am enjoying this.

 

Mark Odegard.