2012/5/4, Tavi <
oalexandre@...>:
> The correct term is "Sorotaptic", as the first /p/ was intrusive.
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
Yes, I know; I used to be a supporter of Sorothaptic (I think in
English it's with th according o Greek etymology)
>
> Tavi:
> However, I disagree with the traditional reconstruction of series III as "voiced aspirated", which only exist in Indic. To me they were plain voiced *b,*d,*g, which is their outcome in most IE languages. However, in Greek and Italic they shifted to voiceless aspirated *pH,*tH,*kH which later became voiceless fricatives. As this shift also happened in Etruscan, we can explain it as a result of language contact.
> Not to mention that "voiced aspirated" are specifically Indic and hence
> not reconstructable for PIE. IMHO, series III is plain voiced.
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
You surely know that they occur in their etymological position
(and as sound-substitution for acrolectal WArm. /p/) in Sevas and
Transylvanian Armenian; possibly in Myc. <pu2> as well.
Anyway, Your typological majority criterion is at variance with
the classical procedure of selecting marked features and
back-projecting them (according to the theoretical framework of an
optimalist direction of diachronic sound change):
b = + plosive, + labial, + voiced, - aspirate
f (Latin) = - plosive, + 'labial', - voiced, - aspirate
ph (Greek, Romani) = + plosive, + labial, - voiced, + aspirate
p (Tocharian, partly Anatolian) = + plosive, + labial, - voiced, - aspirate
bh = + plosive, + labial, + 'voiced', + aspirate (properly murmured
and aspirate or breathy and voiced)
result: PIE = + plosive, + labial, + 'voiced', + aspirate = /bh/