Hello,
> | And, off topic rant, has anyone heard of a second reinterpretation,
designed
> | to undermine the drawback of the GT itself. I have a book by Starostin
who
> | says there's a possibility of the three series being unvoiced, unvoiced
> | geminates and voiced. This is also typological, and has the virtue of
the
> | possibility of voicing of initial geminates (suchn things happen, while
> | voicing of glottalized initials does not).
>
> [Of course GT means Glottalic Theory (of Proto-Indo-European).]
Sure it does.
> Paul J. Hopper interprets traditional (that is, Lehmann's) T, D and Dh (T
=
> voiceless stop, D = voiced stop) as T, T` (glottalized) and D_ (D
underlined,
> meaning "murmured"), a compromise view of Gamqrelidze-Ivanov that
preserves the
> aspiration of the traditional voiced aspirated stops. (Hopper is just as
much
> responsible and deserving of credit for GT as Gamq.-Ivanov.)
G&I and propose that aspiration is distinct phonetically but not
phonemically, and say that a root can only have _different_ allophones. The
order of these allophones is different in different branches. This leads to,
for example, a reinterpertation of Bartholomé's Law.
> An older proposal was by Joseph Edmonds, where T > Th, D > T and Dh
remained Dh.
> The plain voiced stops are devoiced and the already-voiceless stops are
> aspirated.
More typological I'd say... but does that agree with data?
> Holger Pedersen reversed the voiceless and voiced: T > D, D > T. I don't
know
> what he said about voiced aspirates. His logic was based on the rarity of
> traditional *b, and it would make sense that *p would be missing instead
of *b
> in a natural language, which common Indo-European indeed was aeons ago.
Sure. But the question of the weird three-way distinction still remains.
[snip]
> I could take a position that T > Th, D > T and Dh > D (with an allophone
of Dh),
> where the (new) plain voiceless stop need not be ejective or otherwise
> glottalized, but may be "half-voiced". Another theory of mine is in a
parallel
> to Korean and Middle Chinese, where the triad is, in order: voiceless
aspirated,
> plain "lax" voiceless with voiced intervocalic allophone, and the
"glottalized"
> consonant is now the voiced (aspirate) stop, which parallels the "tense"
> "ssang-" Hangul consonants. So then the result is T > Th, D > T/D, and D >
DD or
> D'.
Ouch.
Does that agree with Kartvelian data? :-)
> The obvious point is that the PIE stops are much easier to describe
phonemically
> and typologically than phonetically.
Only too true :-(
Pavel