Re: [tied] Re: PIE voiceless aspirates

----- Original Message -----
From: "david_russell_watson" <liberty@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 10:09 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: PIE voiceless aspirates


> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
> wrote:
> >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "aquila_grande"
> <aquila_grande@...> wrote:
> >
> > > I wonder: Are there any instances of phonemic difference
> > > between aspirated stops and stops + h in IE?
> > >
> > > If this is not the case, perhaps everything that look like
> > > aspirated stops were stops + h(1,2or3) in IE, and the whole
> > > consept of aspirated stops an illution?
> >
> > I do not anticipate any phonemic difference since *H is plainly
> > aspiration.
> >
> > *tH or *t + *H would be /tH/.
>
> No, they would pattern differently, just as *kW and *kw did.
>
> Keeping in mind that 'H' represents the aspiration of the stop
> written just before it, while 'h' represents a laryngeal:
>
> *etho would divide into syllables as [et.ho], 1st syllable long, but
> *etHo would divide into syllables as [e.tHo], 1st syllable short.
>
> David

***
Patrick:

And you still claim that Old Indian aspirates were the product of voiceless
stop + *H???

Love is War!

***