Exercises for Indo-European Phonology (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Sound of Indo-european : phonetics, phonemics and morphophonemics
2012
One of the most detailed and comprehensive studies of Indo-European phonology, this book brings together leading linguists working in Indo-European studies to examine both the broadest definitions of the group -- from minute phonetics to abstract levels of phonemics centring on all varieties of Indo-European -- and individual branches, with contributions on Celtic, Anatolian, Germanic, Indo-Iranian, Italic, Armenian, and even Euphratic.
Bomhard - An Outline of the Historical Phonology of Indo-European (1975)
1975 article comparing Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Semitic. Note: This was my first paper on distant linguistic relationship. My views have matured considerably since then -- my latest work (2018/2020) on the subject is entitled "A Comprehensive Introduction to Nostratic Comparative Linguistics". It is available for free download from academia.edu.
The Indo-European phonological system as traditionnally reconstructed must be regarded as extremely unlikely since that system is totally isolated typologically. Therefore, an alternate reconstruction, along the lines suggested by HOPPER and GAMKRELIDZE-IVANOV, is substituted for the traditional system. The ramifications caused by this substitution are discussed briefly, and the development of the system in the daughter languages is then traced.
On Indo-European Laryngeals [& Peter Dunphy-Hetherington]
The so-called laryngeal theory, today dominant in Indo-European studies, is the most eloquent example of the great achievements of traditional Indo-European Linguistics according to many scholars. However, this theory has always had and still has many detractors. Here we compile the fundamental objections that one might formulate against the laryngeal theory.
Indo-European Linguistics in the 21st Century (2)
2018
Revisionist trilaryngealism, consisting of the hypotheses CC•C, *h1 h2 h3, and at least two different vowels PIE *e *o (and optionally PIE *a), has split the laryngeal theory into several mutually incompatible models. The models of EICHNER (1973, 1978, 1980, 1988) and MELCHERT (1987)/RIX (et al. 2001) are characterized by symmetrical, but opposed reconstructions for Hitt. a-(*h3e-vs. *h1o-) and Hitt. ḫa-(*h2e/o-vs. *h2/3e/o-). In KORTLANDT's (2003-4) model the preservation of *h2 and *h3 is conditioned by the distributions of *e/o. Both laryngeals are allegedly retained before *e, but lost before *o in Old Anatolian. In addition, it is theoretically possible to define a variant of KORTLANDT's model in which the distributions are reversed. The present paper focuses on KORTLANDT's model in both its original and reversed form and demonstrates the internal inconsistency of this model, due to which it has to be discarded as a serious option for PIE reconstruction. This leaves us only the models of EICHNER and MELCHERT/RIX to compete with SZEMERÉNYI's (1967, 1970, 1996) monolaryngealism for the solution of the PIE laryngeal/vowel problem.
A Note on Indo-Aryan Phonology
The earliest written records available on the sub-continent come to us from Sanskrit; in fact RgVeda is regarded as the earliest knowledge-text available to mankind. The Indo-Aryan languages, the descendents of Sanskrit, are spoken across South Asia from Afghanistan to Sri Lanka along side scores of languages of at least three other major language families. A great deal of convergence has taken place among these languages from different stocks over the last over three millennia and they continue to co-exist while maintaining their independent genetic affiliations.