Re: Re[2]: [tied] *kW- "?"

Brian M. Scott wrote:

> At 4:10:21 PM on Wednesday, September 21, 2005, Grzegorz
> Jagodzinski wrote:
>
>> First, a technical note. I follow the old and GOOD
>> tradition to spell H, never h, for "laryngeals" - but we
>> do not know their place of articulation (my opinion is
>> they were just velar spirants x^, x and xW). So, "gH"
>> means for me "g" plus a laryngeal.
>
> In the normal usage here it's the voiced aspirate,

Sorry, what do you mean writing "normal"? But it is _unnormal_ rather. Do
you read articles on IE? I read many, and believe or not, MOST authors use
gh (like in Indian transcription), never g+h superscribed.

And the same, H is _commonly_ used for so called "laryngeal". The spelling
h1, h2, h3 instead of H1, H2, H3 (like _all_ classic sources) is something
new and unpleasant for me. And completely illogic.

> and it's
> a bit annoying to have to remember each poster's private
> conventions.

OK, I will use the traditional spelling without repeating about the
convention. I felt I should emphasize that I would not accept the strange
convention used here by some people and I would follow the traditional
convention instead because I wrote about both aspiratae gh and gH-like
groups.

>
>> And, I use "gh" the same way as in Sanskrit = for a voiced
>> aspirated sound. Such a spelling is correct from the view
>> of tradition and from the view of IPA (h = aspiration).
>> And I cannot understand who and why changed this good old
>> custom with the new one, inverse - perhaps only for making
>> troubles.
>
> No, it's the result of systematically applying a handy
> convention for writing these things in ASCII: an upper-case
> letter denotes a superscript. Thus, the <W> in <kW> is a
> superscript, as is the <H> in <gH>.
> Brian

OK with the convention but there is no need for spelling superscripts. But
gh is just gh, and I see no reason for any superscripting. This is the way
used in 90% sources (in fact, some authors who want to emphasize aspiration,
write g` with inversed apostrophe, but h-superscription seems to be the most
rarely used). Also in the sources I have quoted here.

I repeat, I do _not_ understand why to change the good tradition of spelling
bh, dh, g^h (or g'h), gh, gWh (yes, here W means a superscript, but not h,
there is no need for this). At the same time, H = a laryngeal, H1, H2, H3 =
"laryngeals" (still not defined), x^, x, xW = velar spirants etc.

Grzegorz J.





___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com