PIE *gn- > know/ken

[Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen]

On Sat, 27 Feb 1999, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
[...]

> The most acceptable solution from my point of view is that PIE
> did not have any voiced stops at all.  Instead it made a
> distinction between fortis and lenis stops (as in Finnish, Danish
> or Hittite), where the fortis (tense) stops (*t etc.) were always
> voiceless and pronounced longer/with more energy ([t:] or [tt]).
> The lenis (lax) stops (*d and *dh, etc.) were less energetic/
> shorter, and had voiced allophones.  They came in two kinds, one
> aspirated (*dh = [th]), the other not (*d = [t]).  Or,
> equivalently, one glottalized (*d = [t']), the other not (*dh =
> [t]).

Not wanting to open the whole can of worms again, let me just ask this: Is
a change from lenis to voiced stop natural and frequently seen? If so,
where? If it is not part of general experience I do not see the commending
simplicity in choosing "lenis t" as the origin of Latin, Greek and Indic
plain voiced d. Where "d" and "dh" merged, they are voiced, as in
Balto-Slavic, Celtic and Albanian - why derive this from a basically
voiceless protoform? - Isn't the only thing "wrong" with the IE system
that the aspirated tenues (ph, th, kh ...) have not been accepted? Then,
if we have SOME evidence for asp.ten., but not enough to guarantee
reconstruction of an overwhelming number of etymologies, but without them
the system as such becomes a truly overwhelming mess, isn't the easiest
solution then to accept that SOME etymologies containing ph, th, kh are
correct and that the PIE system was as in Sanskrit? Is it not a very
strong claim that ALL cases of asp.ten. are in last analysis based on
mistakes? For some I could understand this right away, even for many,
perhaps most, but for each single item??

Jens E.R.