From: petusek
Message: 34719
Date: 2004-10-17
----- Original Message -----
From: "alex" <alxmoeller@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [tied] Re: The role of analogy, alliteration and sandhi
in counting
>
> petusek wrote:
> > Why couldn't one imagine devoicing under the influence of the
> > unvoiced veral component? I.e. akwa > (akBa >) akFa > affa > afa
> >
> > As for theorisizing whether kW or k'W, if we find external (i.e.
> > non-IE) parallels or internal etym., we can easily decide, otherwise
> > we cannot. We have to admit both possibilities until oneof them gets
> > completely excluded.
>
>
> It seems one come back to the lost of velar. Assuming the consonatising of
> "W" to any other sound here
> one will get a hard to speak cluster "kv, kb, kp, kf," or there where the
> "W" does not consonify, one has still the
> pronounceable "ku".
> Absolutely theoreticaly one should agree the easiest way to speak out a
such
> cluster should be the reduction of it.
> And the reduction got in some language from "kv,kf,kb,kp" to "k", in other
> languages to "v,f,b,p". That is:
> -some language preserved just the velar of the cluster, some languages
> preserved just the labial of the cluster.
>
> Now, what about "gW" versus "kW"? I guess the problem is not here.
> We do know about s+voiced consonant > voiced "s" (z). What if the same
thing
> did happen here? I mean, the velar from "gW" or "kW" determined what kind
of
> consonant will be this "W". So for "k" since this is a unvoiced one, we
have
> output just unvoiced (p,f) and for "gW" we have as output just voiced
(b,v).
>
> The way appear simple and does not imply any dificult changes since what
due
> consonation of "w" became hard to speak, was reduced again to speakable
way.
> What does speak against this idea?
We must misunderstand each other. When I use "difficult", I mean "difficult
to procede in a single step", not "impossible". Is that clear? Anyway, there
are so many possibilities! akWa > akfa due to progressive assimilation
(voiceless-voiced > voiceless-voiceless) and so on. It would be much easier
if we had the oldest forms attested :-). We do not have them :-(, therefore,
the only thing we can do is speculate.
>
> Alex
I should have written that "B" in akBa is a voiced bilabial fricative, not
"b", being a voiced bilabial stop. I think Greek Beta letter is used for the
sound in IPA. As for the rest of your message - yes. That is the generally
accepted idea that some languages lost the velar component, some lost the
labial component and the rest preserved both components.
If you look at cases like kWI > tI in some languages (where I is a
palatalizing vowel of the /i/ or /e/ type), imagine a focus of the
articulation moving from the velum to the palatum in your mouth, and then
even further due to the labial component, hence to the alveolar sector. Then
these "weird" methamorphoses are easy to understand.
As for any difficulties, I just offered you a possible (however improbable)
way /kW/ might change to /w/, but, if you understand my view, the problem
was its "voicedness". Voicing in a -VCV- clusters isn't unimaginable
(e.g. -VsV- > -VzV-, -VfV- > -VvV-), nevertheless, it's hard to accept
(although possible, too) an easy, one stage, single step kW>w change. I do
NOT agree with your claim that simple reduction of the velar component is
easy. There must've been an intermediate state, I'm sure. Try to articulate
yourself, kW, w, kW, w, can't you feel, hear the differences? I can.
To sum it up, I think there would be more than one steps do procede the kW >
w change necessary. It's up to you whether you take the kW > ?W > w (? being
a glottal stop) - i.e. at least 1 intermediate form - or kW > (QW > XW ?) hW
> w (Q being a voiceless uvular stop, X a voiceless uvular fricative) - i.e.
again, at least 1 intermediate forms (in fact, the uvular stops might've
been just allophones of the velars).
Petusek