--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:
> --- david_russell_watson wrote:
>
> > Their reflexes are dental in the modern Iranian languages,
> > in the modern Indo-Aryan languages (except where retroflex),
> > in the Romance, and in Greek. Isn't it most likely therefore
> > that *t, *d, *dh, and *n were also dental? (I'm less certain
> > about *l.)
>
> That is simply not true.
What isn't true?
> When I speak German, I must make a small effort to make my
> coronals and /l/ detntal rather than alveolar,
So then you wish to enlarge my list by including German?
> as they are in English.
I didn't mention English, and fully realize that its
't', 'd', 'n', and 'l' are alveolar, but then I never
said that there were no reflexes at all of this series
that aren't dental. I'm only saying that the majority
of them appear to be, which makes a good case for the
P.I.E. series having been dental as well. The single
example of English does little to change that impression.
> 'dento-alveolar' would certainly suit me better than 'dental';
You've yet to explain why you're opposed to the use
of 'dental' where it's applicable, though.
> but why use two words to describe one phenomenon: the front
> part of the tongue touching?
'Dentalveolar' isn't two words. It's one word, built
of two. As I pointed out, you shall soon run into
the same necessity, with the likes of 'antero-dorsal',
'postero-dorsal', and 'labio-dorsal', if you insist
upon using lower-articulator-based nomenclature only.
> > Well, all else the same, I don't suppose it matters whether
> > the upper articulator involved, or the lower, is chosen to
> > refer to a phone, although in either case it's still often
> > necessary to note both articulators, such as when speaking
> > of the retroflexes (apico-alveolar).
>
> I used to use 'apical' but the late Larry Trask took me to task
> (or was it trask?)
I've come to see that you're fond of dropping names,
but unfortunately in my ignorance I'm unaware of
most of these people and what they might have written,
including Sihler, and so not likely to be impressed
by reading their names alone. ;^)
Anyway, if you were using 'apical' to mean either
'dental' or 'coronal' one, then Trask was right to
correct you. I'm not suggesting you do that either.
> and persuaded me, from the standpoint of a phonetician, that
> 'coronal' was preferable to 'apical' since not all coronals
> are produced with the tip of tongue; some are produced with
> the forward blade of the tongue - in English, for example.
This statement doesn't really make any sense, in
part because you strangely eschew reference to the
upper articulator and so use 'coronal' twice, where
in the repetition it would have been better worded
'dental' or 'dentalveolar', but more importantly
because nobody's suggesting that the word 'apical'
should be used in place of 'coronal' or 'dental'
either one. Each of these terms has its own proper
meaning and use:
All apical articulations are coronal, but not all
coronal articulations are apical. Not all dental,
or dentalveolar articulations are coronal or apical,
and not all coronal or apical articulations are
dental or dentalveolar.
One can, for example, form a stop with the tip of
the tongue ('apical' and thus also 'coronal') against
the upper lip ('labial'), as well as form a stop
with the lower lip (labial) against the upper teeth
('dental' but not 'coronal'). The first is an apico-
labial stop, and the second a labio-dental stop.
> I basically agree with you here but I am surprised that you
> would acknowledge three articulatory positions for PIE --
> as I do -- palatal (with /e/), alveolar (with /a/) and velar
> (with /o/).
No, the three positions of which I wrote are all
(dorso-)velar, namely the palato-velar, plain velar,
and labio-velar. Besides these three velar positions,
I acknowledge only the bilabial and dental positions
for stops. That amounts to a total of five columns
for the stops.
I'm not sure what you mean by "palatal (with /e/),
alveolar (with /a/)", etc., but while /e/ is indeed
a (dorso-)palatal approximant or resonant, /a/ is
a resonant with the highest point on the tongue
directly below the dividing line between the palate
and the velum, and /o/ is a (dorso-)velar or (dorso-)
uvular approximant. None of them is in the alveolar
position.
> However, ther are things one might want to say about all three
> articulatory positions for which 'dorsal; would be better used
> than the commonly employed 'velar'.
But you've yet to explain why that should be. 'Dorsal'
refers to which section of the tongue forms the _lower_
articulator, and 'velar' refers to which section of
the roof of the mouth forms the _upper_ articulator.
Often enough it's necessary to specify both.
David