From: Richard Wordingham
> On Thu, 07 Nov 2002 14:33:09 -0000, "Richard Wordingham"I'd always understood that the Old Welsh use of <t> for what is now
> <richard.wordingham@...> wrote:
> Old Welsh and Irish use the spelling <p>, <t>, <c>
> for /b/, /d/, /g/, which is nothing strange in a two-way opposition
> /t/ = [th] ~ /d/ = [d.] ~ [t] (cf. also English, where initial and
> final /d/ are voiceless [d.] ~ [t]).
> The High German shift is then comparable to theIsn't the ultimate [th] North German, presumably the effect of the
> second part of Grimm's law: the aspirate becomes a fricative (or
> affricate), the non-aspirate becomes unvoiced and aspirated
> (High German /t/ = [th] > /ts/, /ss/, /d/ = [d.] > /t/ = [th]).
> >What phonemes do these voicing prosodies normally affect? JustDo you have examples?
> Hard to say.
> >Are there examples of this [high tone-induced 'glottalisation'] inwidely accepted reconstructions? Tai
> >tone splits conditioned by the phonation of plosives normally putthe
> >boundary somewhere in the sequence voiceless aspirates, voiceless,I've done a net search on tonogenesis, and the best I can come up
> >preglottalised, voiced, so I am surprised that high tone should
> >produce glottalisation.
> High tone is certainly associated with glottalization (just as low
> tone with aspiration). Within IE, there are a number of examples of
> high tone becoming a glottal stop (Danish, Latvian) or aspiration
> becoming a low tone (Punjabi), so I'm assuming the process can work
> both ways.
> >I'd like to propose a derived variant of this scheme.rid
> >Starting point:
> >1. Voiceless v. voiced (or fortis v. lenis) (as Miguel)
> >2. Voicing prosody (as Miguel)
> >3. Contrastive stress (as opposed to tone) We can probably get
> >of some stressed vowels, so that in some words only originallywith
> >unstressed vowels survive.
> >1. Plosives _following_ stressed vowels are preglottalised, as
> >voiceless plosives in Cockney.Advance the stress and drop the now unstressed vowel.
> So how do you get *d (if *t?/*?t) in initial position?
> >How much do these schemes help with Nostratic? We have fivea "Greek"
> >PIE *dH PAA/PKartv *d
> >PIE *t PAA/PKartv *t
> >PIE *t PAA/PKartv t' (IS)
> >PIE *d PAA/PKartv t (IS)
> >PIE *d PAA/PKartv t' (Bomhard)
> >and only four phonemes (/t/, /d/, /?t/, /?d/).
> As far as I can tell, the normal correpondences between PIE and
> Kartvelian are:
> PIE *t *d *dh = Kartv. *t' *d *t (=th) [i.e. Kartvelian has
> system], except that PIE *bh = PKartv. *b.But Miguel wrote (
> It's just occurred to me how we can explain the Grimm-Verner shiftor
> from a system with *t *d(h) *(?)d.
> Germanic originally had a free tonal accent, which later became a
> system with stress (and low tone) on the initial syllable, no stress
> and high tone on the second syllable (if any). This is still more
> less what we have in Scandinavian.preglottalized
> Now suppose the stops were *t = /t/, *dh = /d/ and *d =
> /?d/. In the initial syllable, low tone caused aspiration:...
> t\- => th-
> d\ => dh-
> ?d\- => ?dh-
> s\- => sh- > s-