>My assumption is that Beekes is saying all of the above-mentioned
> >consonants were actually preglottalized.
Pre-glottalized??... You mean "ingressive"?
>In trying out this combination of glottal+[b] I get the idea that the >two
>'articulatory gestures' may actually have been essentially >simultaneous.
>The result is odd to say the least.
*p? wouldn't have existed since this would be equivalent to the traditional
IE *b... which doesn't show itself at all. I still don't understand why one
must insist on glottalic stops in Common IE when they are not directly
attested.
Why can't we propose that there was a stage before Common IE that had
glottalic stops and that these phonemes evolved into tense stops (*p:, *t:,
*k:)?? It seems to jive better. We don't have to assume conveniently that
the glottalic stops died out in every damn branch of IE known to humankind.
Also, we still would retain the benefits of the glottalic theory (like the
yummy explanation for the absence of traditional IE *b as being the absence
of *p? which is to be expected.)
An added plus to this new tweak of the glottalic theory is in regards to
IndoTyrrhenian. These tense stops (*t:) show up in Etruscan as inaspirate
stops (t) while lax voiced and voiceless stops (*t/*d) show up as aspirates
(th).
- gLeN
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com