PIE voiced aspirates (?)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:

>
> At 3:38:15 PM on Sunday, May 25, 2008, david_russell_watson
> wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Jarrette"
> > <anjarrette@> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> For this reason I think the glottalic theory should be
> >> relegated to the wastebin. The traditional reconstruction
> >> aptly explains the observed phonological phenomena and is
> >> directly supported by the voiced aspirate series in
> >> Indic.
>
> > The problem is that the traditionally reconstructed sound
> > system is typologically irregular. Presumedly a voiceless
> > aspirated row must be present before a whisper-voiced
> > aspirated row can be added.
>
> Only if you think that a strict typological universal is
> involved, which seems to me to require a leap of faith. In
> any case the glottalic theory seems to create more
> difficulties than it solves. Breathy-voiced (e.g., *dH) vs.
> stiff or creaky voiced (e.g., *d) seems a distinctly better
> bet, especially since such oppositions are attested.

Actually I was just pondering what be the greatest obstacle for the
idea that PIE *bh, *dh, *gh, etc were actually *B, *ð, *G, etc. That
would have to be explaining the consequent PIE *B, *ð, *G, etc ->
Greek ph, th, kh, etc. But that could be explained by assuming a
substrate the wouldn't tolerate fricatives, but would precede them
with the homorganic stop:
PIE *B, *ð, *G, etc (old style written *bh, *dh, *gh, etc)->
pre-Gk. I *f, *þ, *x, etc (cf. Latin;
perhaps this is just the selection of a set of allophones?) ->
pre-Gk. II *pf, *tþ, *kx, etc ->
Gk. ph, th, kh, etc.
Corroboration?
PIE *-Ty- > Gk *-Tt, for T stop,
as if by *-Ty- -> *-Tty- (*-Tc^-) -> -Tt-.


Torsten