Re: [tied] Greek labiovelars

From: andrew jarrette
Message: 43874
Date: 2006-03-15



From: Jens Elmeg�rd Rasmussen <elme@...>
Reply-To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [tied] Greek labiovelars
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 15:55:25 -0000


Andrew Jarrette asked:

But why is *gW so special?  That's what I don't understand.  Is it
because it was a glottalic stop, as some theorize?  I see no reason
why *kW and *gWH should remain as /kW/ and /gW/ but *gW must
become /b/.  Why not also *kW > /p/ and *gWH > /b/? Or conversely
*gW remain /gW/ like the other two?  And in Greek (Attic, Ionic) *gW
is special also since although like *kW > /t/ before /e/, *gW > /d/
before /e/, nevertheless unlike *kW > /t/ before /i/, *gW > /b/
before /i/.  I can see absolutely no phonological basis for this,
except dialect mixing, as Sean Whalen suggested.  But these
developments in Irish, Greek, and the tentative ones in Albanian
suggest that the labiovelars were very special in a number of Indo-
European languages, undergoing phonological changes that seem to
defy natural expectations (or normal phonological tendencies). It
seems much more natural to me for *kis or *k'is to become /tis/ than
it does for *kWis to become /tis/, yet a sequence *kis or *k'is
would remain /kis/ in Greek, while *kWis becomes /tis/.  I find this
truly remarkable and would never believe it were it not documented
fact.

Andrew Jarrette

==> I reply:

Good and fair questions. It would seem to me that the main
difference setting off /kW/ and /gWH/ from /gW/ would be the
parameter of voice which is strongest with absence of aspiration.
Thus it would be the woofer effect of the voicing that has caused
the rounded velar to become indistinguishable from a simple labial.
In /kW/ and /gWH/ there was not so much noise for the original
features to be buried in. Note that this can be understood on the
basis of the phonetic values of good classical Brugmannian Indo-
European.

Jens

------------------------------

Thank you very much for replying.  I half expected that my question would be left alone as unanswerable ravings of a half-informed dilettante.

So are you implying that the lack of voice or the presence of aspiration makes the articulation of /kW/ and /gWH/ clearer than that of /gW/, and therefore more likely to retain separate velar and labial elements, since they are more audible due to greater clarity (from lack of voice, clearer explosion, or presence of aspiration)?  Also, do you believe the idea that Celtic speakers began to pronounce /gW/ as /b/ so as to balance the IE deficiency of /b/?  To me that sounds like they deliberately selected /gW/ against /kW/ and /gWH/ for aesthetic reasons, which I would find rather unbelievable (and plus they developed a deficiency of /p/ which was only compensated for in the Brythonic branch, while remaining in Goidelic which had enough /b/ -- so why didn't they (Goidelic speakers) start pronouncing /kW/ or some other sound as /p/ to make up for this deficiency?  Of course, I suppose chronology comes into play here, that perhaps at one stage there was a balance between /p/ and /b/ in Goidelic).  Unless it were an entirely natural process of equilibration -- but I would expect that /kW/ and /gW/ would still be subject to labialization just as /gW/ was, in this equilibration process.  I guess that's where your explanation of the degree of sonorance of /gW/ would be a factor. 

But what about palatalization of labiovelars?  Any idea why they seem to be more prone to palatalization than plain velars (or palatals, possibly, in which case it would be fronting rather than palatalization, I suppose) in Greek and Albanian?  That one still stupefies me.

Andrew Jarrette









SPONSORED LINKS
Online social science degree Social science course Social science degree
Social science education Bachelor of social science Social science major

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS





Help protect your PC with Virus Guard and Firewall from MSN Premium. Join now and get the first two months FREE*