>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 ... ?
"Hardness" and labiality? Are you asking me about the phoneme *p? or the
later version *p: that I propose for Mid (or possibly Common) IE?
The fortis stops would be derived from the glottalic stops and so the
arguement for the loss of *p? (and hence the lack of later *p:) still holds.
Your question is already answered.
In fact, I understand that this change took place well beyond any
IndoTyrrhenian or Steppe stage. If we are to accept that IE is more closely
related to Uralic or Altaic, we should also note that ejectives are nowhere
to be seen in those languages. Nor do we even find ejectives in the more
remote languages that are associated with IE in the general Nostratic
Hypothesis such as Sumerian, Elamite or Dravidian. I presume that this is
because the ejective->fortis shift took place within the Eurasiatic stage c.
12,000 BCE (I don't think IE existed that far back! :P)
>Could you be more specific about "hard"/"fortis"?
In comparison to the let-loose phonemes like *t with aspiration and *d with
voicing, the phoneme *t: was very restricted in both aspiration and voicing.
Hence this set is "fortis" as opposed to lenis (unrestricted) like *t and
*d.
>How did the fortis stops differ articulatorily and acoustically from >plain
>voiceless ones?
Aspiration.
>And if originally voiceless, how did they become voiced in
>so many branches?
Well that's the same question for the glottalic theory except that their
transition is a little easier without the glottalic quality to have to
contend with.
In Germanic for instance:
*d -> *d (no change)
*t: -> *t (aspiration becomes optional)
*t -> *T (softening to fricatives)
... not a very huge change here.
Since *d was "lenis" or unrestricted, it could be easily heavily "breathed"
or murmured as a way in which to dissimilate as much as possible from *t:
(hence *d -> *dh). Whereas *t: (traditional *d) was very strictly inaspirate
AND unvoiced to avoid any merger with *d (traditional *dh).
Once the shift of *d to *dh took place, voicing became optional for *t:
(hence *t: was free to become a simpler restricted *d). Obviously, we have a
greater tendency for *t: to become *d in dialects where *d becomes *dh.
*d -> *dh (murmuring becomes the norm)
*t: -> *d (voicing occurs as a form of simplification)
*t -> *t (aspiration becomes optional
once the contrastive *t: no longer exists)
- gLeN
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com