Re: [tied] Re: Schwa (Was PIE Reconstruction)

----- Original Message -----

From: elmeras2000

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 5:57 PM

Subject: [tied] Re: Schwa (Was PIE Reconstruction)

--- 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.

***

Patrick:

 

Yes, you are right, I do not understand.

 

I thought we were discussing *g^hdhem-, 'earth' (*g^h-dem-).

I thought the word in the original posting about pronunciation difficulty ("dhghem") was a simple transposition error.

What on Earth is your *d(h)ég^h-o:m above?  I know no such word for PIE.

 

 

 

 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    cybalist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/