How would you articulate /gDmes/? It really is such a thorn to me...
But serious questions/comments:

1. Is there a special reason why /tt/ would become [tst] rather than simply
[tt] or even [t]? It doesn't seem likely for a geminate to differentiate
like that.

2. Indeed I would say it is unusual that [T, D] would occur in the
environments that you have mentioned allophonically, especially when stops
are easier to manage in precisely those environments. But I do agree that
[kT] is a nice-sounding cluster ;)

3. If /t/ became [T] I would expect a more general shift rather than
localised occurrences.

Which reminds me of the sound-shifts in Arithide ... I should solicit
comments myself on that.


2009/4/22 Edgard Bikelis <[log in to unmask]>

> Hi!
> I've been polishing my PIE conlang, ausonian, for some time now, and I've
> added some allophony to make it sound better to me. Examples:
> ((this week ; ) I consider  that palatovelars were allophones of plain
> velars, and I made ausonian from a stage prior to it. Otherwise,
> palatovelars and velars merged.)
> /t(H)k(H)/ -> [kT], so /rtkos/ -> [@rkTos] (greek árktos, hittite
> hart(tag)ga-, avestan arSa-, sanskrit. rkSa-.
> /g(H)d(H)/ -> /gD/, so /dhghmes/ -> /gDmes/. (greek khtho:n, hittite
> te:kan,
> tocharian A tkaM, sanskrit kSam-.
> That is the famous 'thorn cluster'. I do not assume that it was pronounced
> with /T, D/, but rather that in ausonian it became being so.
> Assuming the rule that two adjacent alveolar occlusives created an
> epenthetic fricative between them, like /tt/ -> [tst], and simplifying
> every
> [ts] to [s], I tried to abolish all affrication, and with it some awkwards
> encounters:
> /tn/ /dn/ -> /Tn/ /Dn/ (earlier in the language's history), or /nt/ /nd/
> (metathesis, later). Labial occlusives do the very same thing, but with
> _bilabial_ fricatives.
> /tl/ /dl/ -> /hl/, first a sequence of glottal fricative and [l], then just
> a voiceless [l]. In parallel there is /hl/ from an [l] preceded by a
> laryngeal (h2 or h3), and /hr/ in the same circumstance... so, hre:ks
> 'king'.
> [T, D] are heard in just those environments... in this stage of the
> language.
> Now, a friend said it's totally unnatural to have such sounds like [T, D]
> in
> a language, where they are not phonemes. I couldn't remember of any
> language
> doing the same thing. Is it that unnatural? The tendence is to merge them
> with plain [s], but for now I want my [kT]s!
> Thoughts?
> Edgard.