Re: v > ?

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
-