--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-
language@...> wrote:
> ...*h1, on the other hand, did not have any coloring
> effect, so it seems likely that it was articulatorily
neutral. /h/ and /?/ seem to be good choices for the a
articulation of *h1, based on this evidence.
It may have even been both -- that is, what we
> consider to be one phoneme (*h1) may have actually been two,
*/h/and */?/, whose later effects were identical.
>
> I hope this helps. :)
>
> - Rob
If given the value of the glottal stop (?) to H1, the following
speculation connected to glottalization comes up in my mind :
One of the arguments in the theory of glottalisation is the lack of
a phonem b in the IE set of voiced occlusives, typologically said to
characterize the set of glottal occlusives, which are then only
represented by t' and k'.
Wouldn't then a glottal stop H1 be what is left from a former labial
stop which has lost its labialization in the glottalization process?
Haven't nostraticists and other linguists with wider horizons
thought of this and searched for roots ***Bes- 'to be', ****Bej-
'go', *****Bed- 'eat' etc etc ?
Lars