[tied] Re: PIE voiceless aspirates

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

>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "etherman23" <etherman23@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 8:35 PM
> Subject: [tied] Re: PIE voiceless aspirates
>
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dariusz_piwowarczyk"
> > <dariusz_piwowarczyk@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Is there a necessity to reconstruct voiceless aspirates (i.e. ph th
> > > kh) for the Indo-European proto-language?
> > >
> > > Many books I've come across does not postulate them for PIE. On the
> > > contrary, my own teacher of IE Comparative Linguistics (W.

Smoczynski)

> > > argues that their presence is necessary in order for the system

to be

> > > phonologically complete (i.e. to have the opposition between the
> > > voiced and voiceless aspirates). Can someone tell me what's the
> > > general opinion on that subject?
> > >
> > > I'd be grateful for any help.
> >
> > The overwhelming majority opinion is that they're unnecessary.
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> And that majority opinion is absolutely wrong.
>
> PIE *p/*t/*k and *ph/*th/*kh have different correspondents in related
> languages; and the correspondents for *ph/*th/*kh for the greater part,
> correspond to the _preserved_ voiceless aspirates in Old Indian.
>
> ***

And to an extent these are preserved in Greek, Armenian, and Slavic. I
tend to be sympathetic to the view. Unfortunately they tend to be
rather rare.

I've often wondered if PPIE had a system like /t t' tH/ (kind of like
Korean). After t' > d, the aspirates underwent voice assimilation.
That's why you never see sequences like tebH, but you do see sequences
like debH.