Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: v > ?

From:Vasiliy Chernov <bc_@...>
Date:Thursday, December 13, 2001, 17:18
On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 13:24:45 -0500, Aidan Grey <grey@...> wrote:

[...]
> So, the question for you all: how do you think Quenya _v_ would be fit >into the PIE sound system (details below, as relevant to the Celtic langs)? > > Stops: p t k' [k] kw > [b] d g' [g] gw > bh dh g'h [gh] gwh > > fricative: s [th]
Sorry, what do you mean by fricative [th]? "Brugman's spirants?" There seems to be a very simple explanation for them.
> laryngeals: h1 h2 h3 > (and does anyone have any resources on recent laryngeal theory?)
Oh, I wish it existed :( Too much argument around them. Just for example, Starostin maintains that laryngeals are OK only where Hittite has {X} or there's a secondary aspiration elsewhere (e. g. in Indo-Iranian). He insists that the Saussurean "sonantic coefficients" in general don't correspond to Hittite {X} and have no consonantal parallels in the rest of Nostratic. He also thinks one laryngeal is perfectly enough. - While some multilaryngeal extremists are said to reconstruct up to 18 laryngeals (IIRC) ;) [...]
> My guess is for _v_ > _bh_ or _w_, but I have no reasoning for these >choices.
[v] > [w] or [b] seem the simplest changes. With [bh] you'll need an additional explanation for the aspiration - which, however, doesn't seem too difficult (e. g. in line with the various relatively recent revisions of PIE consonant inventory). You can also think of something more exotical, like [v] > [f] > [h]. Basilius -