Re: [tied] Seeking Information Please

From: Glen Gordon
Message: 14937
Date: 2002-09-02

>Do think of a better one, Glen. First, we need *g^H, not

You misunderstood. First, My *gH is a **non-uvular** stop,
traditionally seen as a **palatal** stop. Since we know
that it is strongly unlikely that *gH was ever palatalized
in Indo-European because of markedness issues, why must we
continue to write it as such? Your first arguement has no
bearing on anything because I'm indeed refering to the
phoneme that you require, *g^H (ie: a non-uvular voiced
aspirate stop).

>Even allowing for the possibility of *gH > h and pointing
>to the actual example of duhitar- < *dHugh2te:r (with
>Iranian -g-) as a precedent, we'd still expect *brahiman
>in Indic.

The example of *dHugxte:r becoming /duhitar-/ shows that
we started out with an Indo-European cluster *gx (not a
single phoneme *gH) that changed to *gH^x at some point
in Indo-Iranian, leaving *x to cause /i/ in Sanskrit.
I'm refering to something different here.

I said that in Indo-European itself, there may be
instances of what were _already_ voiced aspirate stops
that are the product of voiced plain stops plus laryngeal
in some Pre-IE stage (more specifically, early Late IE).

So... In the case of *bhlagHmen-, the merger of *gx (your
*g^x) to *gH (your *g^H) would have *already* happened in
Indo-European itself. We wouldn't expect a reflex like
/*bhrahiman-/ because there was no laryngeal to cause *i.
We aren't reconstructing *bhlagxmen- in Indo-European
proper. The latter form was meant to be EARLY Late IE,
again, I repeat, EARLY Late IE, a stage of Pre-IE.

I hope that makes sense now.

- gLeN

Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: