> Bomhard often has IE e/o/nothing cooresponding to AA a/schwa.
But
> already Møller (or was it Cuny) proposed a/schwa for IE, as a
more
> consistent system (the e/o/nothing ablaut is based on Greek
alone).
REPLY
That's a good
proposal. It might indicate a "a-schwa" stage in earlier IE moving
towards a "e-o" stage, analogous to the "glottal phase" and how t/t'/d became
t/d/dh. Another "missing link" found...
> > Second, we might talk about reducing the overabundant
sibilant
> > inventory and chucking out some of the fricatives and
affricates.
> > Let's face it folks, the Nostratic phonological
system as it often
> > stands is overly extravagant, to say the
least.
REPLY
I'm becoming more convinced that sibilants, be they
voiceless or voiced, alveolar or postalveolar, are allophones of the
corresponding non-glottal affricate (s ~ ts, sh ~ ch). That's what
Afro-Asiatic seems to have. But the fact that Kartvelian has two sets of
alveolar sibilants, with pairs labeled as s ~ s1, c ~ c1 etc. I'd have
to investigate further, but the only info I can get on the Web is
Georgian.
My "Semitoform" proposal for PN, which I won't claim to be
authoritative:
alv: s dz c c'
(remember, c = ts)
pal: s^ dz^ c^ c^'
(And I'll add the laterals hl, tl, tl'; there seems to be little or
no evidence of a separate dl.)
Dolgopolsky on the other hand has four sets of sibilants (alveolar,
palatized, postalveolar, lateral), and he constructs not only the
voiced-voiceless-voiceless glottalized affricates but both the voiceless and
voiced fricatives (s and z that is). He's pretty liberal on his PN
consonant inventory, even including *retroflex* nasal and lateral!
So I'm more in favor of Bomhard's system. Except he shows his
"palatals" not as c-hachek and s-hachek, but dy, ty, t'y, sy. He uses
the same symbols for Afro-Asiatic. My knowledge of Chadic and Cushitic
is very limited though, and my understanding of AA is probably way too
Semitocentric. Bomhard seems to favor IE and Semitic a lot in his
version of Nostratic.
[I'm beginning to want to do my own reconstruction of PN; too bad I
don't have any access to the necessary materials...]
As for the fact that all the serious linguists (I am not one of
these), there's just so much more to discuss about IE.
~DaW~