Greek question

[Patrick C. Ryan]

Dear Rich and IEists:

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick C. Ryan <proto-language at email.msn.com>
Date: Tuesday, February 23, 1999 3:41 PM

<snip>

>In my opinion, yes. I believe that Sanskrit <k> can represent either IE <*k>
>or <*kh>.

>[ 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.

<snip>

Pat

[ 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.
  --rma ]