Re: Laryngeal Loss (was Does Koenraad Elst Meet Hock´s Challenge?)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 11:32:13 +0000, "Piotr Gasiorowski
> <piotr.gasiorowski@...>" <piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:
>
> >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>"
> ><tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Yes, yes. Let me rephrase then:
> >> Why did almost all of IE's and almost none of AfrAs' branches

loose

> >> their _original_ laryngeals at an early date, regardless of

whether

> >> they later developped new ones?
> >
> >I'll have to check the fate of the "original AA laryngeals" first
> >(inasmuch as they are reconstructable). I'm by no means sure that

they

> >have survived so well.
>
> The original Semitic laryngeals are not hard to reconstruct:
>
> velar/uvular *x *G
> pharyngeal/epiglottal *H *3
> laryngeal(glottal) *h *?
>
> In Phoenician, there was an early merger of *x and *H, and *G and

*3,

> which is why the Phoenician-derived alphabets only have 4 letters

for

> the laryngeals (our H, O, E, A). Akkadian only had a sign for /x/

(<

> *x, *H), but may have had /h/ and /?/ as well (not fully reflected

in

> the spelling). Classical Arabic has retained the six Proto-Semitic
> laryngeals, but in a language like Maltese (an Arabic dialect
> relatively uninfluenced by Classical Arabic), the spelling only
> reflects four (H < *H, *x, gH < *G, *3, h, q = /?/), and

pronunciation

> only two (written <gH> and <h> being usually silent).
>
> New "laryngeal" sounds gave been created in several Semitic

languages

> (e.g. Hebrew k > k_ (/x/), g > g_ (/G/) or Aramaic *tL. (=

Arab. /d./)

> > q > 3. PAA *s^ is reflected in Akkadian as <s^>, but elsewhere as
> /h/ (what one might call *h2).
>
> What the original Afro-Asiatic laryngeals were is a harder question

to

> answer. As usual, the different reconstructions for PAA do not

agree.

>
> Ancient Egyptian had several "laryngeal" consonants: 3 'i (=j) ` h

h.

> x h_. According to Roessler's system, 3 reflects PAA *r, and 'i
> usually PAA *y (plus a number of palatalized reflexes of other
> consonants). Egyptian <`> reflects PAA *d, *d_ and *dz.
>
> The PAA laryngeals would be reflected as:
>
> *x = Eg. h_ or s^ (pal.)
> *G = Eg. x or 'i (pal.)
> *x. = Eg. h. or d_ (pal.)
> *h = Eg. h
> *? = Eg. 'i
>
> Ehret, Orël & Stolbova do not agree, and, besides other differences,
> think that Egyptian <`> reflects PAA *3 or *G.
>
> In Chadic, it is doubtful whether PAA *x and *G are reflected

(perhaps

> they give k and g in some languages), and only *h and *? are secure.
> Proto-Cushitic, as far as I can tell, appears to reflect all six
> laryngeals (although mergers have usually taken place in the modern
> languages), while Omotic has generally lost all trace of them.
>
> Whether PAA really had six laryngeals is open to discussion. The
> presence of an emphatic laryngeal *H (h., x.) strongly suggests that
> the series *x *G *x. was originally not fricative, but a stop triad
> similar to /*p *p. *b/, /*t *t. *d/, /*k *k. *g/. The logical
> reconstruction would be a uvular series *q *q. *G" (as in part
> suggested by Orël & Stolbova), which gave *X, *X., *R (> *x, *h. *G)
> in Semitic-Egyptian-Berber (but stops in Chadic-Cushitic-Omotic?).
> That leaves *h, *?, *3 [another triad] and perhaps *x2/*X2 (not from
> *q but a separate velar and/or uvular fricative, like we similarly
> also had dental and palatal fricatives *s, *s^ [perhaps also labial

*f

> and lateral *L]).
>
> The PAA consonantal system then perhaps looked like this:
>
> stop/affric. fric. son. semiv. -> Arabic
> asp glot voi
> labial *p *p. *b (*f) *m *w f b b -- m w
> dental *t *t. *d *n t t. d n
> *c *c. *dz *s s s. z s
> palatal *c^ *c^. *dz^ *s^ *r *y t_ z. d_ h r y
> lateral *tL *tL. (*dl) (*L) *l s^ d. -- s^ l
> velar *k *k. *g *x k q j x
> uvular *q *q. *G" (*X) x h. G x
> *h *? *3 h ? 3
>
> (the dental and palatal affricates *c *c. *dz; *c^, *c^., *dz^ are
> perhaps ultimately derivable from palatalized dentals and velars)
>
> If the origin of the consonantal triads *t *t. *d etc. lies in
> original tonal/prosodic/suprasegmental distinctions, that would
> explain the existence of an "aconsonantal" triad *h *? *3.
>
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...

That was impressive!
Now back to my question: Is loss of laryngeals a sign that there was
once a substrate? Arabic having kept all the laryngeals of Semitic
seems to conform to such a claim, as does Modern Hebrew having lost
most of them. Or?

Torsten