Re: Sorting PIE with IPA

Paul Bennett escreveu:
> So, as you may know, I'm working on a dictionary (of sorts).
>
> I have a question that seems pertinent with regard to the ordering of
> entries. It's about the correct way to order PIE symbols within a
> mostly-IPA set of entries. For the bulk of the symbols, I've stuck
> with the order given in Pullum's _Phonetic Symbol Guide_, but the PIE
> dorsals don't fit neatly into that order.
>
> I want both opinions and any relevant precedents, if you've got them,
> to help me best answer the following questions:
>
> Should I sort the PIE palatals (ḱ ǵ ǵʰ) with the IPA palatals (c ɟ ɟʰ)
> or with the k-like symbols? Should I, in fact, simply consider them
> indistinguishable from the IPA palatals?
    Hi! I never heard of your PIE conlang, or maybe you are working on
PIE itself? Anyway, that kind of question seems to always end on the
correct articulation of those sounds... if <k'> is /kj/ or /c/ or
whatever : /. If you use the classical symbols, you will save yourself
of this kind of question. There will always be someone to say that PIE
palatals are anything that you chose ; ). My PIE conlang have all /k/
for <k'> or the plain <k>... 3 kinds of velars are too much for me.
>
> Should I sort the PIE labiovelars (kʷ gʷ gʷʰ) with the IPA labiovelars
> (ȹ ȸ ȸʰ) or with the k-like symbols? Should I, in fact, simply
> consider them indistinguishable from the IPA labiovelars? They're not
> necessarily coarticulated stops, but I think having a consistent
> ordering schema with relation to the palatals would help the reader.
> Actually, *would* that help you, as the reader?
I never saw those symbols! Anyway... here the soil is a little safer,
for <kW> normally behaves differently from <kw>... áshva- (*ékwo-)
versus gacchaati (*gW.mskéti), for instance. But I met a curious word in
vedic recently: navagva 'going by nine' (*new.n-gW.m ?). My
neogrammarian spirit was kind of shaken seeing that. I would stick with
our traditional symbols here too... On a typographical point of view,
it's much harder to find a good typeface to IPA symbols. Unless you are
not fond of serif...
>
> In the same vein: I have currently sorted the PIE laryngeals
> immediately after h, in numeric order, but if you think I'd be better
> off putting those somewhere else too, it would be useful to hear.
What h? h1? For me the most natural order would be h1 h2 h3 ; ). But,
based on the results in greek... maybe h2 h1 h3? Anyway... I think that
would be the most comfortable order for me:

e e: o o: i (and y/j) i: u (and w) u: r l
p (b) bH m (and .m)
t d dH n (and .n)
k g gH
k' g' g'H
kW gW gWH
s thorn and edh (if you are fond of those)
h1 h2 h3

There is much to say about that order. First that if there is no root
starting with vowels, there is little use for the first 'sequence'
there. And if every long vowel, or at least i: and u: are in fact iH and
uH, like in mu:s 'mouse', again we can cut it off. Maybe it would be
more tabular ; ) to put each fricative with its obstruent, but then we
would need to decide what are h123 really like... some say h1 is pure
/h/, others a glottal stop, others a pharyngeal fricative coarticulated
with the thumb of the right hand at night...

    Hope it helps!

Edgard

>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>

Reply