Re: [tied] Suffixes and the Glottalic Theory

From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 17024
Date: 2002-12-05

On Wed, 04 Dec 2002 23:39:54 +0000, Glen Gordon
<glengordon01@...> wrote:

>There was only one kind of voiced stop, a lenis one.

Well duh.

>>What was the other feature?
>As you say, there should be two features distinguishing the
>set *[t, t:, d] in Mid IE. One of the qualities was surely
>"voice", so we have half the question answered.
>The second dimension could have been "aspirate/inaspirate",
>"short/long" or even "plain/murmured", with the fortis stops
>being the more marked variety. Take your pick.

So you don't mean "fortis" at all. If you mean marked/unmarked, don't
call it fortis/lenis.

>>If *d was fortis [tt] and *t was [t], how come it was *d that
>>became voiced (it should have been *t!).
>Perhaps. If so, we should rule out "short/long" as the second
>dimension. However, can't added length translate to voice as well?

Apparently in some Dagestanian languages. The opposite is more
frequently the case (in Basque, for instance, Latin voiced geminates
become simple voiceless stops, e.g. sabbatu > Bizk. zapatu "Saturday",
in Old Irish 3pl. *-nt > -dd > -t, etc.).

Miguel Carrasquer Vidal