[tied] Re: PIE voiceless aspirates

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"
<richard.wordingham@...> wrote:

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

language@...> wrote:

> >
> > 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.
>
> The issue is whether we have a unit phonemes such as *pH or
> clusters *p + *h (*h2, I think, but I'm open to correction).

Quite right, and see the files that I just uploaded where
it's clearly shown that they were clusters.

> A system with /t/, /d/ and /dH/ but not /tH/ may seem unusual,
> but it is not unprecedented among living languages. A partial
> analogy to the English is English _hew_ - is it /hju:/ or /çu:/?

Well if it's analyzed phonemically, then it's /hju:/, but
if instead phonetically, then it's [çu:].

David