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

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

From: david_russell_watson

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 12:40 AM

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

--- 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?

 

***

Patrick:

 

Sorry, I misread Indo-European for Indo-Aryan.

 

However,  wonder if modern Hindi, e.g. pronounces coronals dentally. My impression from only hearing Indian people speak is the the point of articulation is alveolar.

 

***

 

<snip>

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.  

***

Patrick:

 

How are you defining 'majority' - by the number of speakers of the number of languages?

 

***

> '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.  

***

Patrick:

 

Because 'dental' does not suggest the important similarities between dentals and alveolars.

 

***

 

> 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. 

***

Patrick:

 

If you think that dentalalveolar is _one word_, then we have, or rather _you_ have a serious problem.

 

I never suggested anything like "posterio-dorsal". What I advocate is using dorsal for all articulatory positions, and more narrowly specifying the point of articulation when this is useful: palatal dorsal and velar dorsal.

 

***

> > 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.  ;^)   

***

Patrick:

 

What other name have I dropped?

 

Larry Trask and I corresponded on list and privately for a long time. He was a fine linguist, and his opinion was worth much more than a person who thinks dentalalveolar is one word.

 

And if you have never heard his name, you are simply underread for this discussion and discussion list: this is not Sprachenkindergarten.

 

***

 

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.

***

Patrick:

 

I was using 'apical' for 'coronal'.

 

If he was right to correct me, why not right to correct you?

 

***

> 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:

***

Patrick:

 

Apical articulation is not necessarily dental; blade articulation is not necessarily alveolar.

 

Do you understand now why coronal is superior to dental or alveolar?

 

Probably not!

 

***
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. 

***

Patrick:

 

What in God;s name is dentalveolar??? How does anyone get their teeth and their alveola in contact?

 

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

 

***

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. 

***

Patrick:

 

And in what fine language does one find apico-labials, pray tell? None we are dealing with on this list.

 

***

>   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. 

***

Patrick:

 

Labio-velar is not a position: it is a velar dorsal with rounding. 'Rounding' is not an articulatory _position_.

***

 

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. 

***

Patrick:

 

I think you had better read Sihler or Trask or someone who knows whereof he speaks.

 

There is nothing 'uvular' about /o/. That is just plain ignorant.

 

***

 

>   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 

***

Patrick:

 

If you have not understood 'why', your problem goes beyond simple lack of information.

 

This will be our last exchange.

 

***