Re: a discussion on OIT

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

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@> wrote:
>
> > Is it correct that the glottalic theory posits the series
> > *p-*t-*k/*p'-*t'-*k'/*b-*d-*g (ignoring for the sake of argument the
> > palatals and the labiovelars), with *b-*d-*g representing the
> > *bh-*dh-*gh of traditional reconstruction?
>
> > If this is so, then the
> > glottalic theory says that voiceless aspirates in Greek and
> > proto-Italic come from *b-*d-*g while *p-*t-*k remain unaspirated.
> > This seems incredibly implausible to me, that voiced stops should
> > become voiceless aspirates while voiceless stops remain unchanged.
>
> It happened in a contiguous group of Tai dialects (most notably
> Siamese and Lao) and is also known from other parts of the world. The
> shifts there from Proto-Tai to the modern language are exemplified by:
>
> t > t
> th > th
> ?d > d
> d > th
>
> /?d/ is a preglottalised stop. In terms of its effect on tone splits,
> it most typically has the effect of a voiceless consonant, though
> sometimes the glottalised stop and preglottalised consonants have an
> intermediate effect.
>
> Loans from Indic appear from the spelling to have undergone the d > th
> shift, e.g. Sanskrit _dvija_ 'twice-born' > Thai thawit 'bird, brahmin'.
>
>
>

I find the shift *d > /th/ incredibly difficult to believe. The
etymology of Thai <thawit> as from Sanskrit <dvija> strikes me as
false, especially since there is little semantic correspondence
(unless the "bird" referred to is the Phoenix? How are brahmins
twice-born, and why didn't they borrow <brahmin> instead?). Can you
provide Siamese and Lao words with <th> that correspond to words with
<d> in other Thai dialects?

Andrew