--- Paul Bennett <paul-bennett@...> wrote:
> My own notation uses:
>
> p t c k q
> p' t' c' k' q'
> ph th ch kh qh
>
> Note that this is a notation only, and says nothing
about the
> phenetic values of c, k, and q, only that there are
three
> distinct dorsal series. Frankly, I'd be surprised if
we can
> say for certain what the value of the "c" series
was.
That's pretty handy. I might 'borrow' that system if I
really start studying PIE seriously. Makes for easier
typing in Word, without having to duck into 'Symbols'
every other sentence.
> The advantages of this system are that it never
needs
> complex "diacritic" sequences, and that it does so
while
> remaining unambiguous. I've seen things like **gwed-
in some
> plain ASCII discussion, which could be either
**q'ed- or
> **k'ued- in my notation.
So, how do you handle the laryngeals, just out of
curiosity?
> Tangentially, I also include an "x" column for the
> syllable-intitial sound commonly notated tk, dg,
dhgh (or tc,
> t'c', thch in my notation), which would otherwise be
the only
> stop-stop onset cluster in PIE, and which has a
variety of
> usually complex relexes in the daughter languages,
not all of
> which are consistent with a TK sequence.
Oh, for words like *dheghom (if I recall the root
correctly), right? I was wondering about that, since
/tk/ sequences in the initial position are highly
marked (and pretty hard to articulate), unless there
are other stop-stop sequences like /pt/ and /kp/ to
shore them up.
> I personally pronounce the series as based on /tS)/
in my
> internal monolog, but I try to think in symbols
rather than
> sounds most of the time.
Why [tS]?
___________________________________________________________
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de