Motivating the Root Restrictions of PIE

[David L. White]

> I suspect that a slightly different set of alternatives can cover most of
> the same problems.

> 1. The traditional voiced plosives were actually voiceless unaspirated
> plosives.
> 2. The traditional voiceless plosives were actually voiceless *aspirated*
> plosives.
> 3. The traditional voiced aspirates were either simple voiced plosive or
> voiced fricatives.

> At the very least this avoids the typological issues.

        But under this proposal no reason is given that roots with voiceless
unaspirated plosives (TET corresponding to traditional DED) should be
avoided.  Nor is the dissimilation seen in the other two types motivated, as
there is no reason that voiceless aspirated plosives and either voiced
plosives or fricatives should not co-occur.  We find nothing "hard to say"
about "tub" (or "but"), or "peeve" (or "veep"), for example, nor should we.
        The typological issues, I think, are minor, as the idea that there
are no unique languages implies that it is somehow mystically illegal, if
only two languages have a certain feature, for one of them to go extinct.  I
do not think reality works that way.
        The sort of "stiff voice" vs. "slack voice" contrast that is two
thirds of what I posit is, by the way, not unattestasted.  It occurs in some
SE Asian languages, in particular (if memory serves) Mpi.  How it sounds can
be heard by those having access to the UCLA program called "Sounds of the
World's Languages" (or something like it).  Both stiff voice and slack voice
occur, non-phonemically, in English, and there is nothing particularly
exotic about either.  Stiff voice is what is sometimes called "vocal fry" or
"creak", and is often used by men (esp. in RP, I have heard) trying to sound
more manly, and slack voice is the breathy voice (for some reason considered
"sexy" by a good part of humanity) heard from such luminaries as Marilyn
Monroe and George Michael.
        Nor is it unheard of for pharyngealization, which is technically a
secondary articulation,  to be used as if it is a phonation type, which is
essentially what Semitic does. What is unattested is for both these ways of
doing things to be used in the same language, but this could well be just a
coincidence, as neither of them is terribly common to begin with.

                                                            Dr. David L. White