[tied] Re: Schwa (Was PIE Reconstruction)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "David Russell Watson" wrote:
>
> 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.

No, Hindi has both apico-dental and apico-alveolar (retroflex)
stops, but no lamino-alveolar stops.

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

No, by the number of Indo-European dialects. I may be wrong,
and hopefully somebody on the list will correct me if I am,
but it was my impression that the reflexes of P.I.E. *t, *d,
*dh, and *n were dental in the majority of the dialects.

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

J.C.Catford (sorry to drop a name) uses 'dentalveolar' for
the combined dental/alveolar/post-alveolar area. And again,
'coronal' can't properly replace the like, because the apex
of the tongue, which falls under 'coronal', for one, can
reach as far back as the velum, or forward well past the
lips. (Don't ask me to demonstrate the latter gesture! ;^)

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

No, not 'dentalalveolar', but 'dentalveolar'. Have you not
heard of compound words? :^)

> I never suggested anything like "posterio-dorsal".

No, I did. Or rather 'postero-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 Catford, whose terminology is by no means entirely his
own creation but more of simply a tidying up of common
terminology, would call these "(antero-)dorso-palatal" and
"(postero-)dorso-velar". Even ignoring convention, I still
don't understand what advantage there is in choosing the
lower articulator over the upper.

> What other name have I dropped?

Besides Sihler, you said that Lehmann suggested you write a
paper.

I see that I hurt your feelings with the "name dropping"
crack. Sorry about that.

> 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.

Well while I've never heard of Sihler, I have heard of Trask,
and I have no doubt that he was a fine linguist. I also agree
that his opinion on any of these matters would far outweigh
my own, but I doubt that he would disagree with anything I've
said here. I think it's clear that you've badly misunderstood
him.

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

So, what are you saying, that you don't want any more
lessons from me? ;^)

> Do you understand now why coronal is superior to dental or
> alveolar?
>
> Probably not!

No, I don't. They don't refer to the same thing, so
neither can be said to be superior to the other. 'Dental'
refers to a section of the _upper_ articulatory surface,
as do 'alveolar' and 'post-alveolar', with 'dentalveolar'
referring to the combined area of all three, while such
terms as 'coronal', 'apical', 'laminal', and 'dorsal'
refer to sections of the _lower_ articulator, in this
case the tongue. Depending on what exactly needs to be
described, either upper or lower, or both articulators
may require specification.

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

The name implies no such thing, but rather refers to the
_combined_ dental/alveolar/post-alveolar area. I've uploaded
a scan to the files section from J.C.Catford's 'Fundamental
Problems in Phonetics' which my help. I've labelled it
'Catford Pg. 161'. Please take a look at it.

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

It's merely an example to explain a principle.

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

'Labio-velar' refers to one of P.I.E.'s velar series, and
'labial' does indeed describe the articulatory position of
what is called a 'co-articulation'. Rounding is a form of
co-articulation.

> > 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.
>
> 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.

The back end of the oral tract bends downwards, remember?
Whereas the height of front vowels, from high to low,
corresponds to degree of stricture, from close approximant
to open resonant, the same is not true for the back vowels,
the highest point of the tongue during the production of
which is, regardless of vowel height, always close enough
to the velum or uvula to form an approximant there.
Therefore [o] (a close-mid back vowel) is indeed a (dorso-)
velar approximant, and [O] (an open-mid back vowel) is a
(dorso-)uvular approximant. I wasn't sure which your /o/
was meant to represent, so I mentioned both.

> If you have not understood 'why', your problem goes beyond
> simple lack of information.
>
> This will be our last exchange.

Great! I always love having the last word. ;^)

David