Re: PIE voiced aspirates (?)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>
> --- 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-.

What's the objection to reinterpreting voiced aspirates as voiceless
aspirates? It would be typologically natural. It fits with Greek,
which preserves many phonological features of PIE. I-Ir simply added
the feature of voicing. The Proto-Italic changes make more sense
starting from voiceless aspirates. In Tocharian and Proto-Anatolian
the feature of aspiration was simply lost. In Germanic and Armenian
they became voiced, perhaps setting of a chain shift (Grimm's Law). In
the other languages they simply merged with the existing voiced stops.
Furthermore the strange T~DH-like root constraint is simply one of
aspiration harmony in voiceless stops.