Re: [tied] Re: Baltic RUKI etc.

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 23:19:40 +0000, elmeras2000 <jer@...> wrote:

>To enter the relevant universe one may note that Henning Andersen
>proposes an interpretation of the ruki rule in terms of markedness:
>The vowels /i, u/ are non-optimal as far as vowels go, velars are
>non-optimal consonants, and /r/ is even non-optimal with regard to
>an interrupted : continuous opposition. Thus, *by assimilation*, /s/
>in the position after these marked phonemes is replaced by a marked
>variant.

That's not the universe I inhabit... I would propose an interpretation of
the RUKI-rule in articulatory terms: *i/*y and *k^ were palatal, *u/*w and
*k/*kW velar, *r alveolar. If a sibilant follows a velar, palatal or
alveolar tongue-setting, it's more convenient to make the sibilant an
apical rather than a laminal one. This seems to imply that PIE *n was
dental, not alveolar, and that perhaps *h2/*h3 were post-velar rather than
velar (by the time of the RUKI-law).

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