Typology and the phonetics of laryngeals

[Alexander S. Nikolaev]

> Lehmann, in his Theoretical Bases of Indo-European Linguistics, p. 107,
> attributes the term to a Semiticist, Hermann Moeller, in 1879.  He mentions
> only a note and does not give a citation.

> Herb Stahlke


	To be precise:

	H. Moeller. 1880. "Zur Conjugation. KunZa und das t-preteritum.
	Excurs: Die Entstehung des o" In: Beitraege zur Geschichte
	der deutschen Sprache und Literatur. Bd. 7.  S. 492, Anm.2

	"wahrscheinlich gutturale von der art der semitischen, A =
	alef, der tonlose gutturale verschlusslaut und E
	wahrscheinlich der entsprechende toenende verschlusslaut".

(In 1917 Moeller adopted the idea of H. Sweet, which dates back to the
same 1880, that E might have been a "glottal thrill")

It's worth being noted that the two most widespread approaches
towards the determination of the phonetic realisation of Hs both go back as
far as 1880: the "semitic" variant (glottal stop, pharyngeal and the
labialized pharyngeal), for which see e.g. Keiler, Hamp and Beekes, and which
is what Moeller advocated for. But in his earlier article dated the same 1880
Moeller put forth the term "kehlkopsspirans".

It is of interest, that different scholars have been referring
to the facts of Arabic and, generally, semitic languages to witness
the developments, which in IE studies are attributed to laryngeals. But
even in Arabic the effects produced by the neighbouring fricatives
(of the type Jens Rasmussen so lucidly was writing about) are nearly
the same as those of neighbouring ayn, ghayn or hamsa.
(I have to bring my disclaimers beforehand, my knowledge of Arabic is
that of the beginner, and my data of the subject is secondary)

Cf. before ayn (`) Impf. yad.a'u 'he lays' from wad.a`a, while it is
/i/ that is required by the "naw`-un", see yajlisu from jalasa.
But the same case is yad_bah.u from d_abah.a in the proximity of /h./

Or in the akkadian language: 'dust' is epiru, while in hebrew
the counterpart is `a:fa:r (a>e after ayn); but 'father-in-law' is
emu in akkadian, while in hebrew it is h.am.
In akkadian 'take!' is akhuz, while **ukhuz would be expected.

These examples may be multiplied; on the other hand, some of them may
not stand a severe critisism of an experienced specialist in afrasian
languages; still, it can be proved, that fricatives in semitic
languages cause the same sound changes as sounds of glottal
articulation do. And that gives a point to them.

On the other hand, it is sometimes referred to, that afrasian
"laryngeals" could be vocalised (at a certain stage of their history).
And, generally, it seems more probable for the sounds of an "unstable
laryngeal articulation" to be vocalised. But fricatives can be
syllabic, too, e.g. in berber languages. A second point. (Though for
the problem of syllabic Hs anaptyxis is a plausible decision, too).

Thus, to the best of my knowledge and understanding, the model based
on the "semitic laryngeals" has no real
advantage over the system of fricatives; while there's a couple of
pieces of evidence more, which force the researcher to the
"fricative"-conclusion.

		Best wishes,
			Alex Nikolaev

P.S. The funny thing is that greek o-mikron-letter has as its source
the phoenician grapheme, which designated exactly ayn! I am not sure,
may be it was W.Allen, who first paid attention to that.