r and s

[H. M. Hubey]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
 
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> "H. M. Hubey" <hubeyh at Montclair.edu> wrote:
>
> >Unless I am wrong the word for 5 in Chuvash is pilek (which to me sounds
> >a lot like 'bilek' (wrist, hand) and which sounds to me as if it is
> >older than Common Turkic 5 (besh). Secondly the weakness of the liquids
> >in Turkic and Altaic (and Dravidian) is well known. It makes more common
> >sense to believe that l~r Turkic (Chuvash) is more archaic and these
> >sounds changed to sh~z because the eastern languages did not have the
> >liquids, than to assume that it is a rhotacism.
>
> But the "eastern" languages do have liquids.  The question is whether
> Proto-Turkic (cq. Proto-Altaic) had two of each (*r > r/r; *r1 > r/z;
> *l > l/l; *l1 > s^/l) or only one.
>
 
Neither Turkic nor Dravidian have words beginning with the liquids.
KOrean (or Japanese) has only a single liquid and [l], and [r] merely
allophonic realizations. As can be seen the liquids become less and
less used from west to east. The gradient runs east to west. So if anything
the easterners substituted other sounds for the liquids from the west and
managed to pick up a single liquid along the way (in the far west). The
state of the language in the ME before the AA and IE spread is similar;
lots of confusion of l and r and especially in the beginning of words
(see von Soden).
 
 
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv at wxs.nl
> Amsterdam
 
--
M. Hubey
Email:          hubeyh at Montclair.edu    Backup:hubeyh at alpha.montclair.edu
WWW Page:       http://www.csam.montclair.edu/Faculty/Hubey.html