From: Flaviano Matos
Message: 71797
Date: 2014-09-27
There is a reason for the Indo-europeanist tradition, which is a question of accuracy, or rather lack of it. Consider the glottalic theory versus the traditional one. Both have problems. One cannot be sure if PIE *d should be represented either as /d/ or /ť/. The phonetic symbols convey a level of accuracy that may never be met. Nor can anyone say if the PIE *e was pronounced as /e/ or /ε/. What is represented as /bh/ can could be realized as breathy voiced, aspirated voiced, or aspirated voiceless consonant, depending on the theory one is more confident with. There is no such accuracy on the phonological reconstruction so as to represent the reconstructed forms with phonetic symbols instead of letters. It would be like represent a measure of 5 cm taken with a ruler as 50.00 mm, as if it was taken with a micrometer.No seeking is involved: the clear Germanic cognates make it
perfectly obvious that the word is from a Proto-Germanic
Class VI strong verb *hlaþaną.>Or better *xlaθanã using IPA conventions. I disagree with the Indo-Europeanists' "tradition" (I'd rather call it vice) of using non-IPA symbols such as the "thorn" as well as the Greek alphabet for transcribing Ancient Greek.
What is should be intended by the letter *d is a dental consonant in the proto-language that surfaces as /d/ in Latin, Greek. etc., but as /t/ in Germanic, Armenian, etc.
======================= Flaviano Matos In Hollywood, if you don't have happiness, you send out for it. -- Rex Reed Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 50th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3180. Celebrate Bureflux