Re: [tied] Suffixes and the Glottalic Theory

From: Richard Wordingham
Message: 17011
Date: 2002-12-04

--- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Dec 2002 02:46:51 +0000, "Glen Gordon"
> <glengordon01@...> wrote:
> >Things are happier once we first realize that IE never had
> >ejectives. At best, fortis and lenis stops. The voicing of
> >fortis stops occured late in IE (in the last 1000 years of
> >its development). Pronominal neuter singular *-d as well
> >as ablative singular *-d were once fortis stops, not ejectives
> >and the neuter only developed in the Late IE period anyways
> >via the clipping of a suffixed inanimate demonstrative *-t&
> >to *-t: (and then to voiced *-d). The ablative was once *-ate
> >with plain voiceless *t.
> I still have no idea what you mean by fortis. We have three kinds
> consonants (*t *d *dh), so you need at least two features to
> distinguish them. If *d was "fortis", was that in opposition to *dh
> or *t or both? What was the other feature? If *d was fortis [tt]
> *t was [t], how come it was *d that became voiced (it should have
> *t!).

gLeN's theory is that *t~*d~*dH was realised as [t]~[t:]~[d]. Thus,
the other feature was voicing.

Interestingly, it's consistent with my post-vocalic variation of
Miguel's glottalisation theory (in 'Crows and the Glottalic Theory').
With gLeN's phonetics, the first stage is reminiscent of consonant
gemination in Italian. I'm not sure how feasible a merger of [d:] and
[t:] would be, though. Does any form of this glottalisation theory
help with Nostratic?