Retroflexion in IA (was Re: Munda in Early NW India)
David L. White
dlwhite at texas.net
Wed Apr 25 02:15:29 UTC 2001
> Just when I finished writing the above, I got the message in which
> Pat Ryan wrote:
>> [...] Modifying some apicals to a retroflex articulation helped disambiguate
>> somewhat since they indicated a Nostratic root with [o] not [a] or [e];
> Huh? You mean contrast of `Nostratic [o] vs Nostratic [a]/[e]' (whatever they
> are) was preserved till the split of IA so the speakers could decide when to
> change `apicals' to retroflex? Or do you mean PIE *o vs PIE *a/*e (that is
> demonstrably false).
Just a brief note before returning to pretending to be dead ...
How is it, if dentals before or possibly after /o/ in PIE
(presumably Nostratic had to get through PIE in order to arrive at Sanskrit)
become retroflexes, that PIE /tod/, clearly the ancestor of Greek /to/ and
OE /thaet/ (among others) appears as Sanskrit /tat/? Would not one or the
other (or perhaps both) of the dentals in question be expected to become
Back to dutiful slogging ...
Dr. David L. White
More information about the Indo-european