--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-
language@...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: elmeras2000<mailto:jer@...>
>
> Maybe it should be noted that there is no evidence that the
initial
> dental was aspirated.
>
> ***
> Patrick:
[...]
> Also, I favor the idea that PIE did aspirate <dh>, which came
from /dz/ as a way of maintianing its integrity against <d> (/d/).
You do not understand. There is no evidence that the dental phoneme
involved in *d(h)ég^h-o:m (or *d(h)ég^h-o:s ?), *d(h)"g^h-m-ós, *g^h
{th}-ém-i is /dh/ rather than /d/ - in traditional terms. If you
know of any, let's see it.
Incidentally, as Schindler once observed, if the "thorn"-producing
dental is the same in all cases (which cannot be determined as far
as I can see), then it can only be /d/. For only /d/ is combinable
with members of the series g^h, gh, gWh and k^, k, kW; /d/ is
uncombinable with members of the series /g^, g, gW/ which do not
occur in the thorn examples; and /dh/ is uncombinable with /k^, k,
kW/ which do occur on the material. Therefore, the aspiration should
not just be written in by default.
Jens