[tied] Re: the glottalic theory

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 16763
Date: 2002-11-15

Bible or no bible, voiced implosive labiovelars do exist, e.g. in Ega
(a virtual isolate, putatively placed in Kwa):

"The consonant system contains a full series of unvoiced, voiced
(voiced fortis) and implosive (voiced lenis) stops: labial, dental,
palatal, velar, labiovelar."


Doesn't it sound a bit like PIE? It's a pity my source doesn't report
a labial gap.


--- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 00:13:48 +0100 (MET), Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
> <jer@...> wrote:

> >When I once tried to check up on it, the bible of
> >the day, the UPSID index, had no record at all of the existence of
> >implosive voiced labiovelar anywhere in the world. And under at
least one
> >theory, that is what PIE *gW was now supposed to be. This made the
> >glottalic theory look pretty bad even on the surface.
> If ['g] is rare, ['gW] must be rarer.
> The *b gap and the non-existence in UPSID of ['gW] indicate that if
> the glottalic theory is corrrect, the sounds in question must have
> been voiceless ejectives, not voiced implosives. That's to say at
> _phonetic_ level, not necessarily the _phonological_ level. We may
> have had /t/, /'d/, /dh/ realized as fortis [t:], ejective [t'] (or
> preglottalzied [?t]), aspirated [th].