Re: sound change question

On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 11:34:33AM -0800, jesse stephen bangs wrote:
> Yoon Ha Lee sikayal:
>
> > Quick question:
> > Is it reasonable to have [c] and [c_h] (aspirated) evolve eventually into
> > the affricates [dZ] (gains voicing) and [tS]?  The change *sounds*
> > reasonable to me, but I am loath to trust my intuition.
>
> Sounds very reasonable, although the palatalization should probably be
> motivated by something (a following high vowel or front vowel or
> [j]).  Otherwise it seems very good.  Are you going c > g > dZ or c > tS >
> dZ?  It might make a difference.
It needn't be motivated like that, though. The "satem" PIE languages all
underwent a change from plain velars to palatal or alveolar or
alveolo-palatal fricatives (presumably passing through an affricate stage),
no matter what sound followed. The water's muddied a bit by the persistent
tendency to call PIE velars "palatals" even though (AFAIK) they are not now
commonly thought to have been palatal in articulation. According to
Andrew Sihler in _New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin_, it's very
unlikely for actual palatal stops to become velar, and there are some other
reasons to believe that the oldest forms of that series of stops were in
fact velar and that the palatal reflexes were innovations.

--
Eric Christopherson / *Aiworegs Ghristobhorosyo