8

in short: Is there any discussion available online of the following reinterpretation (due to Alwin Kloekhorst) of the stops in the Indo-European phoneme inventory?

classical inventory    reinterpretation
p  t  ḱ  k  kʷ      →  p: t: kʲ: k: kʷ
b  d  ǵ  g  gʷ      → ˀp ˀt ˀḱ  ˀk ˀkʷ
bʰ dʰ ǵʰ gʰ gʷʰ     →  p  t  kʲ  k  kʷ

what are the arguments backing up Alwin Kloekhorst's statement ?


full details :

I read in Alwin Kloekhorst's monumental thesis, from the Leiden University, about the Hittite lexicon that, speaking about the "Proto-Indo-European phoneme inventory" (title after 1.1, p.29):

(...) I follow Kortlandt (2003: 259) who argues that the traditional 'voiceless' series (*p, *t, *ḱ, *k and *kʷ) in fact were plain fortis stops [p:, t:, kʲ:, k:, kʷ], the traditional 'voiced' series (*b, *d, *ǵ, *g, *gʷ) were lenis (pre-)glottalized stops [ˀp, ˀt, ˀḱ, ˀk and ˀkʷ] and the traditional 'aspirated voiced' stops (*bʰ, *dʰ, *ǵʰ, *gʰ, *gʷʰ) were plain lenis stops [p, t, kʲ, k, kʷ] (1.1, p.30)

It should be noted that although I tried to copy exactly what Kloekhorst wrote, I had to modify the symbols for (pre-)glottalized stops and; I also avoid, for technical reasons, italicizing as the author did. As as sidenote, I think it's worth noting that Kloekhorst's views seem to have nothing to do with the glottalic theory even if Kloekhorst graduated from Leiden University, where the

"proponents [of the glottalic theory] today are historical linguists at the University of Leiden" (source)

Since Alwin Kloekhorst doesn't justify his allegiance to Kortlandt's assumption, I followed the given reference, namely "Kortlandt (2003; 259)" which leads to the article An Indo-European substratum in Slavic? (Languages in Prehistoric Europe (edd. A. Bammesberger & T. Venneman), Heidelberg, 253-260), but this article seems to be out of my reach. Full bibliography here.

So far, I've only read another article from Frederik Kortlandt, From Proto-Indo-European to Slavic, 1994. But what I read is somehow different from Alwin Kloekhorst's views: Proto-Indo-European would have fortes (p, t, ḱ, ...), glottalic (b, d, ǵ, ...) and aspirated (bʰ, tʰ, ǵʰ, ...) stops and "Dialectal Indo-European" (namely Balto-Slavic, Germanic, Albanian, Armenian, Armenian, Indo-Iranian and probably Tocharian) would have fortes (p, t, ḱ, ...), (pre-)glottalized (ˀb, ˀd, ˀǵ, ...) and voiced (bʰ, tʰ, ǵʰ, ...) stops.

Hence my question: what are the arguments backing up Alwin Kloekhorst's statement?

4

If I remember correctly, a major argument in favour of the reinterpreted consonant system is the suspicious rareness of *b in the protolanguage. The absence of /b/ in the presence of /p/ and /bʰ/ is more difficult to explain than the absence of /ˀp/ in the presence of /p:/ and /p/.

The problem is that no Indogermanic language has preserved glottalised stops (they are present in Armenian but this can be explained as a later acquisition due to areal influence of Caucasian languages).

  • 1
    That is the basic argument that started off the glottalic theory in itself; I’m not sure it’s really a central argument in Kloekhorst’s particular view, though. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Oct 24 '17 at 13:56

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.