From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 2507
Date: 2000-05-23
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
To: <cybalist@egroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: [TIED] Beekes' PIE Consonants & Glottalized
Consonants.
I wrote:
> > On the other hand, even in the traditionally
reconstructed system >the
> >rarity of *b could be due to causes other than its
airstream >mechanism
> >(e.g. an early merger of *b and *w, not without
precedent).
Glen writes:
> Let me tell ya. That suggestion hurts, even if it is
plausible technically.
I know. It hurts me too. I'm earnestly interested in other
possible explanations. Is "hardness" difficult to combine
with labiality? Or ... ?
> > Here’s my alternative interpretation (don’t take it
too >seriously):
> >
> > *t = [t] (voiceless)
> >
> > *d = [d̰] (voiced, laryngealised, low airflow rate,
low->frequency
> >vibration)
> >
> > *dH = [dɦ] (breathy voice, audible friction noise,
high airflow
> > >rate)
>
> So we agree almost. Except that I take the "laryngealised"
stop to be a hard
> unaspirated voiceless stop (fortis) in opposition to *t
and *dH which are
> plain voiceless and voiced stops respectively.
Could you be more specific about "hard"/"fortis"? These
terms may mean different things to different people. For
example, some phoneticians define the contrast between
English _ten_ and _den_ in terms of tense vs. lax or fortis
vs. lenis, but you presumably mean something else since your
fortis stop is unaspirated. How did the fortis stops differ
articulatorily and acoustically from plain voiceless ones?
And if originally voiceless, how did they become voiced in
so many branches?
Piotr