--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:
> 1. Why the glottalic theory doesn't work for PIE (as opposed to pre-
PIE):
>
> 1.1. The justification for the glottalic theory is wholly
typological: the theory explains the absence of *b (interpreted as
[p']) and the phonotactic constraint prohibiting roots of the *ged-
type (interpreted as [k'et']). On the other hand, the hypothesis is
at odds with the comparative evidence of the documented IE languages:
the actual reflexes of the proposed ejectives are voiced stops in
most of the branches, while the alleged survival of the original
phonation type is doubtful even for the Eastern Armenian dialects,
the glottalists' pet case. The slightly laryngealized stops and
affricates in those dialects are just one particular dialectal
development of Old Armenian voiceless stops. They also reflect old
plain voiceless stops in loans from Greek and Iranian. Incidentally,
there is no tendency to avoid <p> in those dialects.
>
> Since it's a patent fallacy to expect that any reconstructed
language must represent the cross-linguistic average, typological
expectations can't take precedence over "hard" comparative data. The
shift of [t'] > [d] (presumably via an implosive) is possible, but
the chances of such a change occurring independently in several
branches (Greek, Indo-Iranian, Balto-Slavic, Albanian, Italic and
Celtic, not to mention minor extinct groups) are pretty low.
Objection: IE spread. Thereofore all the known IE languages may have
substrates.
>
> 1.2. The constraints explained by the glottalic theory were only
tendential, rather than absolute, already in PIE. Morphemes like *ged-
were rare but not impossible, and *b was rare but not totally
absent. Crucially, combinations like *ded- and *did- occurred freely
in reduplicated roots. Gamkrelidze is aware of this argument and has
tried to counter it by proposing that the prohibition did not apply
to ejectives with the same place of articulation. The ad hoc
character of that qualification is obvious: other phonation-type
dissimilations are not blocked in reduplicated roots (cf. Grassmann's
Laws in Greek and Sanskrit).
>
> 2. Why it's hard to believe that *d = [t'] in pre-Germanic
>
> In the earliest Celtic loans in Germanic and in a few Wanderwörter
of other origin, original /b, d, g/ ended up as PGmc. *p, *t, *k, e.g.
>
> *ri:g- --> *ri:k- 'king'
> *du:no- --> *tu:na- 'fort, enclosure'
> *baita: (Gk. [Att.] baite:, [Dor.] baita:, believed to be a loan
from Thracian) --> *paido: 'leather coat, jerkin'
> *kanabi- (Gk. kannabis) --> *xanapi- 'hemp'
>
> Possibly also in some toponyms:
>
> *da:nu- --> *to:nu- (--> Slavic river-name *ta:nu: > *tany/*tanUv-
> Pol. Tanew)
>
> It follows that at the time the borrowing took place, foreign
voiced stops were identified with the pre-Gmc. *d series. This is
consistent with the traditional interpretation of pre-Gmc. *d as a
[d]-type consonant subsequently shifted to *t by Grimm's Law.
>
Objection: We might have a Shibboleth-situation here, and the loans
may be Cadraig-type loans ("their /d/ is our /t/) and thus have been
borrowed after Grimm.
Danish example 'tapper' "brave". Obviously a loan from
German 'tapfer', cognate of Dutch 'dapper'. And what happens:
German 'pf' is purged in favor of our equivalent 'pp', but 't' isn't
replaced. (The matter gets complicated by the fact that the adjective
was much used in our 19th century wars with the Germans; "den tapre
landsoldat").
Torsten