Re: [tied] Re: Is initial *b really rare?

----- Original Message -----
From: <CeiSerith@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 11:37 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Is initial *b really rare?


> Regarding nursery and echoic words, is it being suggested that these grew up post-PIE and resemble each other for certain reasons, or rather that they actually existed in the PIE period? If the latter, why would the PIEs have created words with a sound that wasn't in their language already?

The problem with echoic words is that it's hard to prove their protolanguage status, or to date them in any way, for that matter. They often fail to develop regularly because their sound-imitative shape resists change. If, on the other hand, they do undergo regular changes, they may lose their echoic value; consequently, speakers abandon them and create a new set of onomatopoeic words. I suppose the IEs said something like *be: and *kúku when they wanted to imitate sheep and cuckoos, respectively. But had such interjections developed like ordinary words, they would have ended up as Mod.Eng. *[pi:] and *[haU], more suitable for mice and dogs.

As for using "exotic" sounds in echoic words, cf. the frequency with which initial /z/ and /dZ/ occur in English expressive vocabulary (neither of them was allowed word-initially in Old English): zoom, zap, zip, zigzag, zizz, jerk, jig, jazz, jabber, etc.

Piotr

Piotr