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

In article <4stp10povjfhcphar7j5qmbfpd3nn08f7t@4ax.com> Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

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

. . .

>>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.

Yes, but is the new evidence that Jens mentioned incompatible with any
of the various proposals? I've seen, for instance, a suggestion that
the traditional *d, etc, were lax stops. I don't see how combining
the traditional *t (whatever its assumed realization in any
particular proposal) with a laryngeal would produce a lax stop.

--
Brent J. Ermlick Veritas liberabit uos
brent3@...