Motivating the Root Restrictions of PIE

[proto-language]

Dear Stanley and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Stanley Friesen" <sarima at friesen.net>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 8:17 PM

> At 11:39 AM 11/11/00 -0600, David L. White wrote:

>> According to Lehmann, PIE shows three kinds of root restrictions.  Accepting
>> for now the traditional interpretation and using "D" to represent any voiced
>> plosive, "T" to represent any voiceless plosive, and "DH" to represent any
>> voiced aspirate plosve, these are:

>>                 1) no /DeD/
>>                 2) no /TeDH/
>>                 3) no /DHeT/

>> correct, these restrictions (not to mention the /b/-gap) do not make sense.
>> So here is one way (the only way I can see) that they could make sense.

>>         1)  The voiced plosives were orginally not voiced but
>> pharyngealized.

>>         2) The voiceless plosives were orginally laryngealized (which is
>> not the same as glottalized).

>>         3) The voiced aspirates were as traditionally posited,
>> technically murmured.

> 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.

[PR]

This conforms very closely to my own views with the exception that I would
add:

4. The traditional voiceless aspirates were voiceless fricatives.

Pat