On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 2:17 PM, And Rosta <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> The pluses of the glottalic theory are that it can tie together the
> absence of /b/ with *DeD. The pluses of the /b/--/w/ merger theory are
> principally that it explains the weird /wr/ and /wl/ and secondarily that
> it explains the high frequency of /w/. I think the latter has the better
> pluses. *DeD suggests that at some point /D/ had glottalic realization,
> either [t'] or "[d']" (implosive). Assuming that late PIE did have a
> [dh]:[d]:[t(h)] contrast (or was it [Th]:[d]:[t]?), it seems to me slightly
> easier to get to [dh]:[d]:[t(h)] from [d(h)]:[d']:[t(h)] (/d/ becomes
> pulmonic and accordingly aspiration (or voicing) on /dh/ becomes
> contrastive) than from [d(h):[t']:[t(h)] (> [d(h)]:[t]:[th] >
> In all of this I am merely an interested and not very knowledgeable
> amateur, I hasten to add.
Preceding the well-founded but typologically bizarre final stage of PIE in
which */t dh d/ were realized as [t d_h\ d], I think we have a moderate
amount of consensus that */t dh d/ were realized as [t d ???], where the
big question is what the ??? value of the D-series was.
When the absence/rarity of traditionally reconstructed */b/ was initially
speculated in this discussion to be due to an earlier merger with */w/, the
larger suggestion was that the Pre-PIE D-series were _voiced spirants_, not
implosives (or ejectives). That makes */b/ = [B] -> */w/ pretty easy to
imagine, and it seems the best place to start if you want to insist that
*/b/ -> */w/ merger happened.
I am curious if anyone following this thread knows any evidence supporting
this. As far as root constraints, it just dawned on me while writing this
that if the D-series started out as two series of spirants, voiced and
voiceless, that later merged, then roots TeD, DheD, DeT, DeDh could all
mesh with the voicing-agreement constraint that allows TeT and DheDh and
disallows TeDh and DheT. Of course, DeD is disallowed... is there any
precedent for two spirants being barred in a root? Maybe one of them was
forced to dissimilate into a plosive?
Of course, one would want to explain */t dh d/ later changing from [t d
T~D] to [t d_h\ d]. Any ideas?