Re: [tied] PIE Stop System

Well, okay, perhaps there is a difference, but I do not think it is very
big. If 'resound' is discarded as onomatopoetic, and some missing
ten.asp.-cases are added (Skt. prthuka, Arm. ort' 'calf'; Skt. s'a:kha:
'branch', Arm. c'ax, Sl. soxa; Skt. ratha-, Alb. rreth 'circle'), the
balance is not very uneven.

It has a taste of unequal rights when you make the following assertion:

> The difference between *g^hw and *gwh is reflected in Sanskrit, Avestan,
> Armenian, Albanian, Slavic, and Baltic.
> But the difference between */p t k/ and */ph th kh/ can be reflected
> securely only in Greek and I-I.

Aspirated tenues are found directly in Armenian, and under certain
conditions also in Italic and Slavic (*kh), and I would say Albanian (th).
And "I-I" is not less than "Sanskrit, Avestan"; nor is "Slavic, and
Baltic" in my opinion more than one branch.

Even if the picture can be honestly made out to be uneven, it should be
remembered there will always be something that takes up the place at the
end of a scale. Not *all* IE phonemes can be more frequent than others.
Does that make them wrong? If we delete them for that reason, do we not
make the next ones waiting in line wrong?

And worse: there must be *some* things that occupy the position on the low
end of the scale of easiness of detection. Are things necessarily
non-existent just because they are hard to discover? You accept it is a
matter of interpretation, but are you implying that we should stop
interpreting the data? Are we entering an anti-intellectual contest to see
who can accomplish less?

Jens

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, P&G wrote:

> >>voiceless aspirates.
> > > There are only 4 that are supported by both Greek and Skt, one of
> those
> a
> > > Lall-word.
> > > Is this really "ample" evidence, which "demands" the reconstruction
> of
> > > voiceless aspirates?
> >
> > Oh yes, that's more than the basis of a phonemic opposition between
> /gWh/
> > and /g^hw/.
>
> Alas Jens, when you make this claim, your facts are wrong;  the
> distinction
> between *g^hw and *gwh is very well founded.
> The difference between *g^hw and *gwh is reflected in Sanskrit, Avestan,
> Armenian, Albanian, Slavic, and Baltic.
> But the difference between */p t k/ and */ph th kh/ can be reflected
> securely only in Greek and I-I.
> For *g^hw and *gwh, even though the difference only appears
> root-initially,
> we have 3/4 minimal pairs, 3 other words in *g^hw and 8 in *gwh.  Some of
> these are very wide spread over the IE languages which can show the
> difference.
> For */p t k/ and */ph th kh/, there are only 3 words where *kh is
> supported
> by both Greek and Sanskrit, and 1 for *ph.  One of these is the "laughing
> noise".   In all other cases either a laryngeal is known to follow an
> original */p t k/, or the evidence is contradictory, difficult to
> interpret
> safely, or the aspirate is restricted to a single language.
>
> You don't need me to spell out the reflexes for you, but in case anyone
> else
> is following, we would expect to find:
> gWh     >  Skt h/gh          Av j^   Arm j^/g  Alb gj-  Lith g-     OCS
> s^/g
> g^hw    >  Skt   hv/juhv-  Av zb  Arm j       Alb z-    Lith z^v  OCS zv
>
> If we consider only the minimal pairs, and only the languages that show
> the
> difference, then we get:
> gwhen "hit"  Skt h / gh-  Av j^  Arm j^/g-  Alb gj- Lith  g- OCS z^ / g-
> gwhen "swell"  Skt h-/ gh-   Arm -g-  Lith g  OCS g
> g^hwen "resound"  Arm j-  Alb z-  Lith z^v  OCS zv-
>
> gwher "hot"  Skt h-/gh-  Arm j^-   Lith g-  OCS g-
> g^hwer "wild animal"  Lith z^v  OCS  zv-
>
> g^hwel "become bent" Skt hvarate redupl juhur- & jahvar-  Av zb-  Lith
> z^v
> OCS z-
> gwhel "want"  OCS z^
>
> Since these roots are widely attested across Greek, Latin, Celtic and
> Germanic, and since there are other roots showing the same distinctions,
> but
> not as minimal pairs, the evidence from the satem languages can be taken
> as
> establishing that *g^hw and *gwh were indeed different phonemes.
>
> But no such certainty can prevail with */p t k/ and *ph th kh/.  I accept
> that the degree of certainty we give it is a matter of interpretation,
> but
> the facts are that the claim for the phonemicity for voiceless aspirates
> is
> much less securely based than that for *g^hw and *gWh.
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
> Click Here!
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>