Re: CHAT: Glottalized consonants

Lars Mathiesen wrote:

>There are other versions than the glottalic theory of Gamkrelidze and
>Ivanov --- but (from what I see on the Indo-European list) there seems
>to be wide agreement that the values of t-d-dh (assigned a hundred
>years ago by the Neogrammarians) are not only unlikely as an actual
>phonological system, they don't actually account very well for the
>facts either. So something has to be put instead, but the question is
>what.
The Neogrammarian system is a clear violation of linguistic universals, but
of course Greenberg came after the Neogrammarians.  A voiced stop implies a
voiceless counterpart, so there would have to either be a four-way
distinction as in Sanskrit and daughter languages (t-th-d-dh), or the
three-way with ejective of Armenian (t-t'-d).


>(The active/stative thing, on the other hand, just seems to be roundly
>ignored).
True.  I'm not even sure how active/stative works, but from what I read I-E
probably started as an active language, then became ergative, then finally
nominative-accusative.  (I forget what Hittite and Anatolian languages was;
I think they were ergative, but I'm not sure...)

Danny


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com