Re: [tied] Thoughts on the existence of *H1

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 9491
Date: 2001-09-14

*sth2tós can be read as /stx'tos/, where [x] is a "guttural" fricative not unlike Spanish "j/x". Between consonants it was syllabic -- possibly accompanied by a brief reduced vowel [&] ([stx&'tos] or [st&x'tos]).
Here's a table of PIE consonants:
voiceless          p    t    k^   kW    k
voiced            (b)   d    g^   gW    g
voiced aspirated   bH   dH   g^H  gWH   gH
FRICATIVES              s       xW(=h3) x(=h2) h(=h1)
NASALS             m    n
LIQUIDS/GLIDES     w    l  r  j
The symbol "W" stands for labialisation, i.e. lip-rounding accompanying the articulation of the sound (*kW was pronounced rather like "qu" in English, but was a single phoneme rather than a sequence of two). The contrast between *k^ and *k (also in the voiced and aspirated rows) is a controversial matter. It may well have been the case that *k^ was a "plain" velar ([k]) and what we write *k was a uvular stop ([q]), pronounced more "in the throat". In the so-called Satem languages (the Baltic, Slavic, Indo-Iranian, Armenian and Albanian branches) the third column of stops (*k^, *g^, *g^H) changed into palatal sounds (ending up as various affricates and fricatives), hence the special transcription.
The "voiced aspirated" stops (*bH, etc.) were probably breathy voiced (pronounced with the incomplete closure of the vocal folds, so that the voicing is not quite efficient and air leaks between the vocal folds producing a murmur-like friction noise).
The phoneme *b is bracketed in the table, because it was a rare sound at best, and some consider it absent from the PIE consonant inventory.
The phonetic value of the so-called "laryngeals" (*h1, *h2, *h3) is debatable. The values I suggest in the table could be questioned by other linguists. The most elusive fellow among them is *h1, the one we're discussing in this thread. Some people believe it was a glottal stop (transcribed [?]) rather than [h]. Personally, I wouldn't die for either theory, though I do prefer [h]. Perhaps we are wrong in reconstructing a single phoneme "h1" -- the protolanguage may have had both [?] and [h]. The evidence for *h1 is circumstantial rather than direct.
I omit lots of other controversial issues for the sake of clarity.
----- Original Message -----
From: Che
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 8:03 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Thoughts on the existence of *H1

mmm... I really DO have a problem when trying to read and understand your notation system. Is there a table where listed or something?
How the heck is "sth2-tó-" read?