[tied] Re: the glottalic theory

From: Richard Wordingham
Message: 16742
Date: 2002-11-14

--- In cybalist@..., Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen <jer@...> wrote:
> Guys, you can't mean this. The Danish stød rule is very simple and
of no
> consequence for IE...

It's not as bad as it looks. Miguel is (or was) looking for a
plausible sound change and reasonable prior phonological constraints
that will result in some words starting with a glottalised plosive,
some with a glottalised plosive elsewhere, other words with only
unglottalised plosives, and no words having two glottalised plosives,
or at least not flanking the same vowel.

So far, we have had no success in glottalising initial plosives.

I thought Miguel had a scheme for reconciling the Bomhard and IS
Nostratic correspondences for PIE (by splitting PIE *d etc) but it
now seems not.

Incidentally, is having /?t/ and /?k/ but not /?p/ plausible? With
voiced pre-glottalised plosives, the natural gap seems to be to
lack /?g/ rather than /?b/, which does not suit us at all.

Richard.