Re: [tied] Laryngeal theory as an unnatural

On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:03:30 -0000, "tgpedersen
<tgpedersen@...>" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 20:42:39 +0000, "Glen Gordon"
>> <glengordon01@...> wrote:
>>
>
>> After eliminating these, there remain a number of unexplained
>cases. I
>> see no reason to think that a single solution must exist for these
>> remaining cases, when there are at least four different solutions
>for
>> the ones above.
>>
>> One solution for a number of cases would be a nasalized vowel **/ã:/
>> which would have remained as /a/, while its non-nasalized
>counterpart
>> **/a:/ became /o/. This might explain a number of words such as
>> Pokorny's *dha(m)b(h)-, *g^hans-, *la(m)b(h)- [2x], *mad-, *mag^h-,
>> *mag^-, *mand-, *man-us, *marko-, *matH-, *mat-, *mazdo-, *nant-,
>> *nas-, *pando-, *pank-/*pang-, *sal- (if *sa(m)-l-), *tap- (*tap-n-
>),
>> *wank^-.
>
>Or the other way around? I believe Polish pronounces /a~/ as /o~/
>so /a~/ > /o/ would make sense.

The Polish sound is /o~/, written <a,>, but not necessarily pointing
to a development /a~/ > /o~/ (Slavic has a:, o: > a; a, o > o).
Interchange between a- and o-like sounds is common enough, and /o~/ >
/a~/ is probably just as likely.

For PIE /o/, an origin is in nasalized /a~/ is out of the question:
there are just too many o's. For PIE non-laryngeal /a/, I think it's
a good possibility: /a/ is very rare and could have developed from a
marked sound like /a~/ (or /o~/).

>And could the otherwise unexplained pH/b, dH/t, etc alternatation be
>explained as the result of a "hidden" nasal?

The interchange mbh ~ mb is common in IE. I remember reading an
article about a possible rule: /mbh/ directly before the accent,
elsewhere /mb/, but I don't remember where.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...