Motivating the Root Restrictions of PIE

[CONNOLLY at LATTE.MEMPHIS.EDU]

To explain the well know restrictions of PIE roots,

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

David L White proposed:

>>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.

Surely he can't mean that *all* of these applied: what sort of typological
system would that be, with pharyngealized, laryngealized, and murmured stops,
but no other kind?

Stanley Friesen rejected this proposal, saying:

>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.

This set of alternatives hardly seems "slightly different" to me.  SF
continued:

>At the very least this avoids the typological issues.

That depends on which alternative is chosen in the third series: while a system
with voiced stops (possibly with fricative allophones) is typologically
impeccable, voiced fricative phonemes would be at least very unusual for a
system lacking corresponding voiceless fricative phonemes.

Pax Domini semper vobiscum.

Leo A. Connolly                         Foreign Languages & Literatures
connolly at memphis.edu                    University of Memphis