Where the Voiced Aspirates Voiced Fricatives?
I've been pondering about a problem for some time now. What is traditionally reconstructed as voiced aspirates, and is probably more accurately reconstructed as voiced stops in Indo-European at times seem to display voiced-fricative behavior rather than voiced or voiced aspirate.
Let me explain. The first thing that brought me on this thought is the odd reflex of *ǵʰ in both Sanskrit and Latin. They both reflect it as h. For example *ǵʰeiōm 'winter' is found as hiems 'winter' in Latin, and as hima- 'cold' (like in himalaya)in Sanskrit.
A *ǵʰ > h shift isn't that obvious. Taking it as a voiced stop it becomes slightly more probable, but still an intermediate stage must have been a voiced velar fricative [γ].
For Latin this is easy to understand the other voiced aspirates also become fricatives word initially (*dʰ > *ð > [*þ >] f, *bʰ > *v > f), but for Sanskrit this is a lot harder to imagine. Why would *ǵʰ become a fricative, while *dʰ and *bʰ become aspirates stops dh and bh respectively. It makes me feel that more is going on here.
Then there's the lovely Germanic languages.
Verner's law teaches us that the *f *þ *x *xʷ *s > *b *d *g *gʷ *z when directly followed by the Indo-European accent. This law can only be understood if *b *d *g *gʷ like *z were voiced fricatives rather than voiced stops. Which automatically implies that the reflexes of the Voiced Aspirates were in fact voiced fricatives.
Those are a whole bunch of voiced fricatives, or at least voiced stops that can't really decide on what they want to be. I'm currently thinking that the Voiced Aspirates were in fact voiced stops that alternated with voiced fricatives allophonically in some way. I'm just not completely sure in which way just yet.
Any thoughts?
Comments
Careful with the spelling errors. FYI, "Winter's Law", not "Vinter's law". And this literary morsel might help resolve the cause of our obscure lenition of velar aspirates.
Stuart-Smith, Phonetics and Philology (2004), p.202: "The velar voiced aspirate is more likely than any of the other voiced aspirates to devoice, and recent acoustic studies report breathy voiced stops with voiceless aspiration as particular frequent realizations for the NIA voiced aspirates. It seems likely that the devoicing could have started here. Attested parallels show a limited development to voiceless aspirate in word-initial position in European Romany."
So the conclusion we can draw from this is that in PIE itself, there were no doubt some dialects that pushed the original voiced stop (eg. *g) already to voiced aspirate (eg. *gʰ), or even to palatal voiced aspirate (ie. *ǵʰ) in pre-satem dialects, while others were more conservative and maintained original *g. Particularly in the languages that evolved these voiced velar aspirates, further erosion via devoicing and debuccalization would then be a significant phonetic likelihood based on my above reference.
I've also never seen a good explanation why we think eg. Latin medial B was actually [b], rather than the [v] from which it originated in many cases and which it generally became in Romance.
For Verner's Law, one suggestion is that it predates Grimm's Law, making the change again one of simple voicing: p t k(ʷ ) > b d g(ʷ ).
Tropylium: "It makes more sense to me to devoice them universally, similar to Greek (this change probably being influence from Etruscan etc.)[...]"
Oh goodie, another "blame-it-on-Etruscan" pet theory online.
Seriously? Obviously, the development of Greek has nothing to do with Etruscan.
Anyways, breathy voiced consonants would be particularly prone in Proto-Greek to devoicing for a reason. The state of [+voice][+aspiration] is an overly marked one within the context of the PIE stop system. Naturally, universal devoicing solves this temporary markedness issue most economically. It further emphasizes the idea that not all PIE dialects pushed their original plain voiced stops to breathy voiced stops. Early Proto-Germanic (PGerm), for example, would be one such dialect that avoided "phonation shift" found most predominantly in the PIE core. Thus alleged shifting of PGerm *bʰ to *b is an unnecessary step, much like as stated in Glottalic Theory... except without the controversial ejectives.
Tropylium: "I've also never seen a good explanation why we think eg. Latin medial B was actually [b], rather than the [v] from which it originated in many cases and which it generally became in Romance."
It's time to experience the wonderful world of Etrusco-Latin onomastics:
Lat. Trebonius = Etr. Trepu
Lat. Trebius = Etr. Trepi
Lat. Obulsius = Etr. Upelsi
Lat. Vibenna = Etr. Vipina
Notice how Latin -b- regularly corresponds with Etruscan p?
Aspiration devoicing doesn't require external influence as a motivation, that's correct, but there are still also other choices, like the spirantization of Iranian (and perhaps deaspiration, but as you say, in a glottalic framework that's a needless complication to postulate). And the region of devoicing nicely happens to be in the same area where Etruscan and its suspected relativs were spoken. (If Albanian etc. never had the voiced aspirate stage, we dodge the problem of why they didn't undergo the same change.) So would you oppose "probably involving influece from Etruscan etc."?
(…and now I wonder if neighboring languages with voiceless aspirates can possibly influence the original development of voiced aspirates - purely phonetically-speaking, historically that's a bit too far out.)
—The latter examples you post settle the deal of Latin b quite convincingly, thanks.
Tropylium, your previous statement was impossible and easily falsifiable with a simple glance within the pages of a decent encyclopedia. If you now are attempting to revise your incorrect statement by stating that *Pre*-Etruscan affected Proto-Greek phonology then it's become a multiplication of hypotheses, a betrayal against the principle of Occam's Razor. Afterall, we both now agree that there remains nothing of Proto-Greek phonology that's truly inexplicable with common internal processes alone. The facts you've presented so far don't grant you the right to use the term "probably" because you fail to substantiate the necessity of that option in the first place.
To continue forcing Etruscan as a cause of everything despite violating Occam's Razor strongly suggests that you are unable to let go of your idée fixe even when the odds are against you. Convictions are distasteful because they sabotage sensible debate.
For a bit of background, do we agree that the wave model of sound change requires that innovations - even phonetically "expected" innovations - are rare, and the principal motivation of sound change is influence from other speakers (not necessarily even of the same language)? So the Greek change being internally justifiable does not imply that we should take it to be an internally-originated change. For starters, Italic displays the same change. I take this as evidence that the development spred over the two from a common origin.
Next I need to drag out the theory I'm working off of. This involves only a small modification to the framework required by the wave model: that just the presence of a sound can also propagate in a similar fashion. While I've not seen this theory explicitely typed out, it should not be controversial: for a few examples that come to mind, Forest Nenets is agreed to have undergone the change *r > ɬ under influence of Khanty dialects that also have the sound (and where it is of different origin); or, many Finnic languages have redevelop'd palatalization under the influence of Baltic & Slavic languages, but not the more northwesterly (more Germanic-influenced) Finnish dialects.
So this means devoicing of aspirates is a natural and expected result in a language with voiced aspirates (only) that comes into contact with one that has voiceless ones (only).
Is there some extra hypothesis this mechanism requires to work in this case, but the independant innovation mechanism doesn't? I don't see one.
Finally, to repeat, the geographical distribution of the change (again, no devoicing in Indo-Iranian) is what really speaks for contact influence and against independant innovation here. Admittedly we don't have all that much data here to work with, but that's why I went with "probably" rather than "obviously".
For the meta-discussion side, "convictions" are distasteful only if not based on any logic. I hope the previous will help in detailing by what logic I've arrived to the idea (and I object to calling it an idée fixe just because I do not immediately abandon it when someone raises concerns about it!)
Tropylium: "What hypothesis' addition are you protesting?"
It's quite clear what I'm against: Your empty desire to explain Greek phonological changes with Etruscan or Pre-Etruscan in proven ignorance of both Greek phonology and Etruscan. Don't play daft. I showed you why it's unnecessary and yet you continue with an idée fixe without relevant proof. Suit yourself. I don't like to waste my time with dead-end ideas. The onus remains yours to substantiate your claims. Since you refuse Occam's Razor, there's nothing logical about your assertions.
Be forewarned, Phoenix...
Tropylium's last comment on my blog was a taunt (which I immediately deleted) right after Lameen's tacit approval of an attack against me by an ailing individual called Carlos Quiles of Dnghu infamy (see here) who seems to be intent on selling his literary wares by any negative means possible. It's clearly hostile and clearly senseless but, online, sense seems to be thrown out the window. There's no rational reason why Lameen would allow this except to try hurting fellow bloggers in bitterness. Lameen joins the Hall of Shame to which Language Hat and his band of commentbox fools also belong, if you still remember what lunacy transpired there.
This is why anonymity is so insidious because people feel that they can treat others any way they feel, no matter how hatefully or senselessly, without the restriction of a real-world moral code. Constantly baiting, never producing real work of their own.
As I advise all serious bloggers, be very strict with your commentbox policies. My policy is squarely based on the principles of logical debate. If someone continues with an unproven idée fixe without any new information, their comments are simply deleted because it's important to respect the readers' time and not overflow one's commentbox with uneducated opinions, pet theories and repetitiousness. Some diplomacy is always required as a blogger but it shouldn't be limitless or else trolls will take full advantage of that.
Nevertheless I do see some reason in Tropylium's arguments. :-D
It's a bit difficult to follow the discussion. What I understand is that Tropylium says the following:
Voiced Aspirate devoiced to Voiceless Aspirates probably due to influence of Etruscan not knowing any voiced aspirates in its phonological system.
An obvious probably with this is that *b *d and *g were also unknown sounds to Etruscan, and they never left the phonology of Greek. It feels a bit odd to partially assimilate your phonology. Nevertheless it might be possible.
Whereas you,Glen say the following:
There's no reason to assume this shift is due to Etruscan influence since we're talking at time depths where it's impossible to tell whether Etruscan had a phonology as we find in the inscription and then, without any further proof, it would not make sense to assume that Etruscan was the language to influence Greek's phonology.
It does seem a bit far out to assume a Pre-Etruscan to have influenced Pre-Greek. Enormous differences in time depths, especially with the marginal comparative evidence of Pre-Etruscan.
But, maybe, just maybe, there is a sort of sprachbund in that region that preferred voiceless aspirates.
My conclusion now after looking at this problem is that I'll have to agree with Glen that assuming Pre-Etruscan influence on Pre-Greek is a stretch. It could be possible, but it's not actually possible to be proven. And let us not forget, Tropylium, that sound changes unmotivated by language contact exist too, quite abundantly even, especially if a phoneme has a superfluous feature like voiced aspirates within the language's phonology.
Just an example, though not completely similar. Colloquial Dutch lenites /d/ to /j/ in intervocalic position, goede > goeie 'good'. We could blame this on a similar shift we find in French, but this is silly. The time between these two shifts taking place in the individual languages is enormous.
So without outside influence a shift occurred. It happens and such an explanation might have to be preferred over assuming a unreconstructed earlier form of a difficult to interpret language at a time depths where we honestly have no proper idea what that language may have sounded like.
I certainly think Tropylium's idea would be possible. I just think it's impossible to prove so as long as no further evidence is found, there's no reason to assume it's correct and then there's a more easily justifiable reason that the shift just happened by itself. Occam's Razor indeed. The easiest solution is to be preferred.
Luckily this idea is falsifiable. If Tropylium finds evidence that would make it likely to believe that Pre-Etruscan at Pre-Greek times was phonologically similar to attested Etruscan then obviously his explanation will be a lot more attractive. I wish him/her the best of luck finding such evidence. But it does make it a pet theory for now, until evidence is found.
Pet theories aren't per definition bad though. Sometimes you have to go looking for something which is not obviously there, else you'll never find something new. Just like how I went to look for Consonant Gradation in indo-european (Though I am in no way sure that this Gradation is actually real). But it is only a 'hunch' rather than a theory :-)
Now let's let this discussion rest until it becomes even harder to follow ;-)
Perhaps some confusion was caused by my usage of the word "probably". I do not insist that the change must have been due to influence - I meant more of a 51% vs. 49% case.
By the way Glen, I'm not sure what "taunt" you mean. The note about having noticed that the discussion about vocabulary size was going also on at Lameen's? I just dislike splitting discussion about a single topic.
Almost makes you wish the early 19th century idealists had succeeded to make a perfectly rational semantically indisputable clear conlang doesn't it? :D
Tropylium,
In re of your claims
A.1: You fail to prove that Proto-Greek aspirates were affected by any language, let alone Etruscan.
A.2: Capitalizing on the vagueness of the term "possible" is not valid proof.
A.3: You also fail to prove that Pre-Etruscan was adstratal to Proto-Greek.
A.4: All evidence shows that Etruscan came from SW Anatolia (as I've already discussed on my blog with ample references and facts), not Greece.
A.5: Ergo, your views remain invalid, factless, citeless and suboptimal.
In re of logical debate itself
B.1: Without supporting facts & references, you show a lack of responsibility to your own ideas.
B.2: This lack of maturity and discipline is antagonistic to the proper flow of rational debate.
B.3: So too is a continued lack of supporting references & facts.
B.4: Ending a debate with "let's agree to disagree" is sensible only in cases of educated opinion.
B.5: In discussions of fact however, it's a diplomatic cop-out to evade the sting of logical truth.
B.6: Your unqualified charge that I've misused Occam's Razor masks the truth that you reject Occam's Razor itself.
B.7: This is why on academic blogs, it's best that posts from individuals continuing to be incapable/unwilling to cite facts and references to support their views should be henceforth deleted until they are capable.
B.8: This cuts down on irrelevancy in commentboxes, making reading easier and increasing the informative value of a blog.
B.9: Fact-evading opinions have no value to the scholarly reader or to science as a whole.
Sigh. Again? Rather than taking the opportunity to discuss facts or references in your favour, you still rely on on all things subjective and rhetorical: no facts, no references, just egocentric definitions of "civility", "hurt feelings", paranoid concerns about censorship, feigning ignorance of bloggers' inherent rights to delete your idée fixes at will, etc.
Rhetoric = bad debate. I've already explained that any prehistory of the Etruscans lies in SW Turkey (starting with Herodotus I.94). And your facts? Nothing. Yet you can't behoove yourself to accept reality either. You're just not being constructive as it stands, so I naturally get suspicious. Whether one is a "troll" or just "innocently ignorant", it's a moot point since both have a negative effect on academic-oriented blogs and both should be purged so that they either make their own blog devoted to their pet theories or die in obscurity and ignorance alone.
Now, if I may try to salvage your weak view for the sake of constructive arguement, if you had suggested that the Minoan language was a source of areal influence of Proto-Greek aspirates, that would be something a historian might be able to stomach since Minoan areal influence on the early Greek language is virtual certainty despite our lack of knowledge about the language. However, even then, you still would be in the same bind, stuck with the same onus explaining why we *must* conclude that aspirate devoicing is characteristically "Minoan" despite the unsurmountable fact that plain voiced stops simultaneously lack such devoicing and the fact I already referenced above where such changes are normal without the need to appeal to an outside force.
So, I find it impossible to respect your dead horse because not even my hyperactive devil's advocate can find a way of readapting it to something credible. Sensible people would let it go by now. You dwell on your dead horse, suggesting that your ego is involved.
There are many negative people out there who blame me for not giving unstudied views praise but I trust that positive people are capable of recognizing my underlying intent in all this to intellectually challenge people to argue their opposing points better. Bad debate afterall is boring so I'm really serious when I say that I want you to find facts in your favour! I really like worthy intellectual opposition.
So I hope, Tropylium, that you'll try to be more positive in the future and more genuinely respect others in a debate by finally offering concrete facts and references. Civility in itself is empty and unworthy of trust; only a person's commitment to logic and fact is a meaningful measure of respect and compassion for others, particularly in a logical debate, since the facts that one cites in this commentbox can help so many other future readers on this page for years to come. That is true and ultimate respect of others, not doublespeak.
In your next post, I want to see a fact or reference.
For preface, yes, I kno rhetoric isn't an argument. Again, the only reason you see here messages without arguments is Phoenix's plea to "let this discussion rest", which you've done good job of completely ignoring. Which one of you is setting the rules of discussion on this blog, again?
(Also, for future reference, what would you have someone say if they are going to let an argument rest? Disappear without noise? Or did I miss some kind of a "I'll have to think about this some more" magic word?)
Getting back to the actual discussion, however. First, what is this "adstrate" red herring? At no point have I questioned your doutlessly more informed view on the place of origin of the Etruscans and their relativs. Southwestern Anatolia is in fact adjacent to Greece, however. Meaning that we would expect the two language groups to have been in contact for an extended period — which is a sufficient geographical condition for Sprachbund-type convergent language development.
At no point have I also attempted to claim that 1st millennia BCE Etruscan would have influenced 2nd-3rd millennia BCE Greek. That would be patently absurd, and it's odd why you see any need to argue against that. Minoan suits perfectly fine for the purpose of my argument, as might proto-Aegean, or any other language of the same affiliation and of suitable age (which, again, I was expecting you to understand from "Etruscan etc." Clearly I was wrong)
Getting to the proof of burden part. I dont kno how much more explicitely I must put this so that you might grasp it, but again, I'm not claiming there to be any facts requring it necessary to conclude that aspirate devoicing is of external influence. Okay? So feel free to stop attacking this strawman you've set up.
Now, to restate my actual point. You say that internally motivated sound changes are a normal occurrence, and I agree. However — and here's another of those facts you are on the lookout for — externally motivated sound changes are also a normal occurence, not freak accidents that only happen once in a millennia. So you'll have to provide some arguments for your assertion that internal motivation is "simpler" and therefore preferrable by Occam's Razor.
Don't fail to note that pre-existing phonological justification is not a cause for a sound change: not every language palatalizes its consonants before front vowels, or voices intervocalic voiceless consonants, etc. So "an innovation occurs" is itself an additional assumption, just as well as "influence occurs" is.
As long as arguments favoring one or the other are absent, and the conditions necessary for external influence are met, I will hold a priori the two to be equally likely. And again, my final step - from "equally likely" to "influence by some amount more likely" comes from the geographical distribution of IE aspirate devoicing, for which influence provides an explanation, but innovation does not.
Next, for why voiced stops then also didn't devoice (finally! new comments about the actual topic!) — well, this exact same question can also be asked about the scenario of internal innovation, and the same answer you've correctly pointed out before applies: because they're less marked sounds. Also, an additional point might be that they do have voiceless counterparts. External influence does not act to eliminate sounds not found in the influencing language, it acts to introduce sounds that are found in it (compare eg: Germanic influence on French leads to introduction of front rounded vowels, not to elimination of /(d)Z/).