Re: Evidence for Nostratic? (was Re: Proto-Uralic?)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andreas Johansson" <andjo@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: Evidence for Nostratic? (was Re: Proto-Uralic?)


> Quoting Muke Tever <muke@...>:
>
> > > I think they were orignally assumed to be
> > > vowels(someone put me right here).  But when Hittite showed up, they
were
> > > changed to be consonants, I think.
> >
> > Well, the laryngeals act like the *y *w *m *n *l *r in that they can act
as
> > syllabic consonants, as in *p2ter- "father" with syllabic *2=.  All the
> > known
> > reflexes of _that_ were vowels, reconstructed as schwa.  But from the
> > beginning,
> > even to Saussure who proposed the "coefficients sonantiques" they were
the
> > same
> > kind of consonant as the *y *w *m *n *l *r.
>
> From the Appendix I of the American Heritage Dictionary:
>
> "The laryngeals ... could function both as consonants and as vowels: their
> consonantal value was that of h-like sounds, while as vowels they were
> varieties of schwa, much like the final syllable of English sofa"
>
> I'm, of course, in no position to tell how reliable, up-to-date, or
commonly
> agreed upon this is.
Nothing regarding PIE is reliable.  I wouldn't say it was out of date, but
it's not(AFAIK) commonly agreed on.  I was under the impression that they
were consonants everywhere.  I wouldn't say it was impossible that it's
true, though.

>                                                      Andreas
>

Reply