From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 55578
Date: 2008-03-20
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <miguelc@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: dhuga:ter
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:23:17 +0100, "fournet.arnaud"
> <fournet.arnaud@...> wrote:
<snip>
> >Interesting that you say "at least some (or most? or all?) of the
> >time". I've been thinking along those lines myself. We distinguish
> >the laryngeals by their vowel colouring and vocalic reflexes in Greek,
> >mainly, but that doesn't mean that every laryngeal that gave /e/ in
> >Greek must have come from the same unitary PIE laryngeal phoneme. In
> >the case of *h1, I agree that some, or most of the time, we're dealing
> >with /h/: (some) *h1('s) aspirate(s) a following or preceding stop,
> >some *h1's give /h-/ in Armenian and Albanian. On the other hand, *h1
> >must sometimes have been a simple glottal stop /?/: I believe a root
> >like *h1es- "to be" is more likely to have been /?es-/ than /hes-/ (I
> >mean, maybe it was */hes-/, but I don't think it's likely that *all*
> >roots beginning with *h1V- had /h/).
***
I think you are probably on the right track here but, I think, we must hold
open the possibility that Anatolian had /?/ <Ø> and /h/ <h> while
non-Anatolian had only /h/ <*H>.
***
> >As to *h3, I don't think /G/ is very likely. At least in late PIE, I
> >think there were no voiced fricatives. Earlier voiced *z, as in the
> >nom.sg. which lengthens the thematic vowel, later merged with *s, so
> >it's very unlikely that *G, if it ever existed, did not merge with *x
> >(*G is usually the first voiced fricative to go, cf. Dutch). Also, a
> >voiced velar fricative does not explain the o-colouring, so we should
> >at least have /Gw/, and that would be strange indeed, to have /Gw/
> >without /G/.
***
This I might have a problem with.
I do not believe that PIE had *z any more than it had *f, *G, or *x.
It had only *w and *s.
Strange, I know.
***
> >My own proposal would be to split up *h3 into /xw/ (labialized *h2,
> >aspirating, Hittite h-), /?w/ and /hw/ (labialized *h1, partially
> >aspirating, Hittite 0-) [allowing Jens to withdraw his "vote for
> >chaos"]. "Voicing" *h3 can then be from *Gw > *xw, if the traditional
> >reconstruction of the stops holds, or from *?w if the glottalic theory
> >is correct. A possible confirmation of either thesis might come if we
> >could discover cases of voicing *h2 (< *G) or of voicing *h1 (< *?).
> >
> >Now if we have labialized laryngeals (*h3), we probably have
> >palatalized ones too (*?y, *hy, *xy). The first two surely give *h1,
> >the last one too (as phonetic [g]), judging by the *h3 ~ *h1
> >alternations in the dual endings, which I trace back to auslautend
> >nominative *-(a)ku > *-xw > *-h3 and oblique *-(a)ki > *-xy > *-h1.
> >
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> miguelc@...
***
I would prefer to believe that PIE *H had a voiced allophone: *HH (or howeve
we want to notate it), and I am not enthusiastic about that.
I cannot really comment on the last half of your paragraph without getting
into your theory of case endings in -*k, which I think is totally
unsupported,
Everything you said until that point is defensible.
Patrick