Re: The palatal sham :) (Re: [tied] Re: Albanian (1))

On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 06:37:23 -0500 (EST), "Brent J. Ermlick"
<brent3@...> wrote:

>In article <bvgiko+d6gh@eGroups.com> elmeras2000 <jer@...> wrote:
> . . .
>> There is quite a lot of evidence for the voicedness of /H3/ now,
>> only not very many know about it. The analysis of the variants of
>> the "Hoffmann suffix" *-H3en(H2)- delivers a series of new examples,
>> as soon as Birgit Olsen's papers on it appear. There's a congress
>> report from a Copenhagen symposium on IE derivation edited by
>> herself just about to appear, and there is an analysis of relevant
>> Avestan forms in a festschrift which may or may not have appeared
>> already (I guess I'd better not mention the name of the receiver).
>
>Does this evidence of voicedness affect the glottalic hypothesis
>or would the phenomena also be explicable with voicedness as redefined
>in the various glottalic proposals?

The various glottalic proposals affect the voicedness and laryngeal
settings of the PIE stops. Fricatives, such as *h3, are not affected.

Of course there may be some typological incompatibilities or
interdependencies involved. If we have a system without voiced stops (such
as *t = /t:/, *d =/t'/, *dh = /th/), it may be unlikely that there would
have been voiced fricatives (not sure if that's a universal); if we have a
system with aspirated stops (/th/, perhaps also /dh/), one of the
laryngeals must be simple /h/, etc.

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