Patrick C. Ryan
proto-language at email.msn.com
Wed Feb 24 02:10:20 UTC 1999
Dear Rich and IEists:
From: Patrick C. Ryan <proto-language at email.msn.com>
Date: Tuesday, February 23, 1999 3:41 PM
>In my opinion, yes. I believe that Sanskrit <k> can represent either IE <*k>
>[ Moderator's opinion:
> There is very little good evidence for voiceless aspirates in Indo-European.
> --rma ]
Precisely. That is one of the important reasons that the IE sound-system
should be placed in the wider matrix of Nostratic.
I have found that Egyptian k corresponds to IE g(g^) and k(k^); ditto T
(bar-t) for g and k only; but Egyptian H (dot-h) corresponds to IE gh(g^h)
and k(h)(k^(h)); ditto x (hook-h) for gh and k(h) only.
[ Moderator's response:
If the Nostratic evidence independently requires 4 series of stops which
oppose voicing and aspiration, and it can be shown that in Indo-European the
Nostratic voiceless aspirates collapse together with the voiceless plains,
well and good: Cite the etymologies which support this claim. Otherwise,
the Nostratic evidence has nothing to offer for the reconstruction of a
series of voiceless aspirates in Indo-European; the few which are claimed are
the result of clusters of voiceless plain+laryngeal (specifically, *H_2),
although there are those who see the Skt. voiceless aspirates as evidence of
Prakrit interference (as the development of *sC to CCh in the Prakrits would
provide a source for a hypercorrection of Skt. **sC to the attested sCh,
where <C> represents any voiceless plain stop) and do not even accept this
laryngeal development while otherwise fully accepting laryngeals.
More information about the Indo-european