From: Richard Wordingham
> Going back to basics and looking at the attested reflexes in the IE...
> languages, we can distinguish 4 groups:
> 2) Armenian, Germanic (+ Celtic)one
> *t = /th/, *dh = /d/, *d = /t'/
> Again typologically unproblematical, and even the *tegh/dhek-
> prohibition can be explained as a simple constraint on the
> co-occurrence of voiced [*dh] / unvoiced [*t *d] stops. The problem
> is explaining how the other systems may have originated from this
> (a "reverse Grimm's law" would be as bizarre as... Grimm's lawWhat's Celtic doing here? (Was Thracian meant?) I would have
> itself), without e.g. *tH and *t merging, etc.
> 4) Latin, Greekare
> *t = /t/, *dh = /th/, *d = /d/
> Unproblematic typologically, but the *b-gap and the deg-constraint
> historically inexplicable. In fact, far from being a possibilityfor
> (pre-)PIE, this system is probably simply derived from the previousExcept that pre-Latin didn't have a *th to merge with *dh.
> one (by merger of *th and *dh).
> ... the following proposal to explain the *deg-constraint and *b-gap.
> The original situation (likely to be ancestral to the whole
> language family, long before PIE) would have been a system with twoWhat phonemes do these voicing prosodies normally affect? Just
> kinds of stops (voiced and unvoiced or perhaps fortis and lenis: *p
> *b, *t *d, *k *g, etc.), and, suprasegmentally, two tones (marked:
> high, unmarked: low).
> The following unsurprising constraints applied: (1) one root (word)
> could only contain either all voiced or all unvoiced stops; (2) only
> one syllable in a word could have the high tone.
> For example:
> taka (= tÃ kÃ ) tÃ¡ka (= tÃ¡kÃ ) takÃ¡ (= tÃ kÃ¡)
> [but no tÃ¡kÃ¡, taga, tÃ¡ga, tagÃ¡]
> daga (= dÃ gÃ ) dÃ¡ga (= dÃ¡gÃ ) dagÃ¡ (= dÃ gÃ¡)
> [but no dÃ¡gÃ¡, daka, dÃ¡ka, dakÃ¡]
> Subsequently, the tones were lost, but high tone left a trace inAre there examples of this in widely accepted reconstructions? Tai
> (marked) glottalization of the consonant, while low tone gave
> (unmarked) aspiration, as follows:
> taka t?aka tak?a [but no t?ak?a, taga, t?aga, tag?a]
> daga d?aga dag?a [but no d?ag?a, daka, d?aka, dak?a]
> For vowel initial words, we perhaps had:
> haka ?aka hak?a
> haga ?aga hag?a
> To explain the Indo-European state of affairs, all we have to do isto
> postulate a merger of (ejective) **t? and (implosive) **d?:**t
> 1 2 3 4
> **t? , **d? > *t' ~ *t' ~ *'d ~ *d
> **d[h] > *th ~ *d ~ *dh ~ *th
> **t[h] > *tt ~ *th ~ *t ~ *t
> with the Germanic/Armenian solution based on the opposition **t? ~
> (> t(') ~ th), the others rather on **d? ~ **d (> (')d ~ dh). I see*d?
> no way to merge the two solutions at the PIE level with only three
> (not four) series to work with, so either I have to posit *t? and
> for PIE istelf, or divide PIE into two dialects with rspect to the...
> obstruent system.
> For the labials, we need the special rules:of
> **p, **p? > *p (/p/)
> **b, **b? > *bh (/b/)
> This was undoubtedly triggered by the loss of the ejective feature
> *p?, an entirely predictable phenomenon. Implosive *b ( = /'b/) mayor
> be allowed to have had a marginal existence besides unmarked *bh ( =
> /b/), as for instance in modern Arabic (ba:b = door, 'ba:'b = dad)
> even English (bye-bye = /'baI'baI/), but for the most part it mergedI'd like to propose a derived variant of this scheme.
> with *b in a simple opposition /p/ ~ /b/ for the labial series.
> /b/ (implosive for some speakers). Do we need to postulate astable dialect split on the basis of whether the preglottalised