Indo-European Phonetics General Notes

Transcription of symbols used: , , , , ! - long [a], [e], [i], [o], [u] sounds " - Indo-European 'schwa', an indefinite sound #$, %$, s$ - palatal sounds #&, p&, t&, '& - glottalized sounds r$, l$, n$, m$ - long syllabic sonants

1. The roto-Indo-European phone!es can be reconstructed using the co!parati"e !ethod #. The ter! $ roto-Indo-European phonetics$ refers to the %ate period of the roto-languages' de"elop!ent, the period &ust before the split of the roto-language into separate dialects 'fro! the (th to the )rd !illenniu! *+, ). There are nu!erous and "arious concepts of reconstructing the phonetic syste! of Indo-European

The traditional reconstruction (supported by Brugmann, Meillet, Benveniste, Szemerenyi) promotes: ten Indo-European "owels '- long and - short, plus 'schwa', syllabic sonants 'again long and short, and # se!i"owels, three sets of Indo-European stops '"oiced, "oiced aspirated, "oiceless, plus palatal and labio"elar consonants .ccording to $traditionalists$, there was only one spirant in IndoEuropean/ (s) *ntoine +eillet noted fi"e !ain peculiarities of the IndoEuropean phonetic syste!/ 1. . rich syste! of stops #. %ac0 of spirants ). 1re2uent 3s and absence of its "oiced counterpart 3, '(, could appear only as an allophone of (s in certain positions, (. oor "ocalis! 'for only (e, (o and rare 3a can be considered as pure "owels, while (i, (u are partly sonants, -. . co!ple4 syste! of sonants

5ere is the traditional sight in charts/

6owels

i, e, a, 7 o,

u, !

6owel diphthongs ai, ei, oi, au, eu, ou

8yllabic sonants r, l, n, m, r$, l$, n$, m$

+onsonants
labial labio"elar dental palatal "elar nasal 8onants li2uid se!i"owel "oiced 8tops b %%-h #d dh t s m n r, l y %$ %$h #$ % %h #

"oiced bh aspirated "oiceless p

8pirants

All the roots analyzed in this very research are given in the traditional transcription

.erdinand de /aussure
in 19:;s first ga"e an idea of the $sonant coefficient$ in roto-IndoEuropean which could produce long "owels in the roto-language. 8oon the laryn%eal theory appeared, supported by 0indeman, 1urilo-ic, and others. The laryngeal theory proclai!ed the new understanding of IndoEuropean phonetics/ laryngeal phone!es should be added. The nu!ber of laryngeals 'usually !ar0ed as (2, has always been a 2uestion for discussion, "arying fro! only one to three. The disco"ery and deciphering of the 5ittite language ga"e a brilliant proof of the e4isting of laryngeals in Indo-European/ they were preser"ed in 5ittite and %uwian tongues. Today the !ost detailed analysis of laryngeals confir!s there used to be in fact three laryngeals/ (23, (24, (25 which generated lengthening of (a, (e, (o "owels in roto-Indo-European. E4cept 5ittite, none of 0nown Indo-European dialects preser"ed any trace of laryngeals, though there ha"e been se"eral atte!pts to find their trace in Indic, 5ellenic and 8la"ic languages.

The first who dared to reconsider the traditional system of stops was Pedersen in 1951 but his theory was not fully acceptable !n 19"#$ Gamkrelidze in %&&' and in 19"($ Hopper in %&A independently invented the %lottalic theory which turned right upside down the traditional perception of !ndo) *uropean stops The theory was described in detail in the 19+, wor- by Gamkrelidze & Ivanov !t suggested the e.istence of three series of stops in the /roto)!ndo)*uropean language: glottalized stops$ voiced stops (with aspirated position allophones) and voiceless stops (again with aspirated position allophones)

The glottalic system: 8top consonants labial dental glottalized 6p&7 &tops voiced t& velar plain palatalized labiovelar #& #&$ #&%-8%-h #-8#-h %8%h %$8%$h #8#h #$8#$h

b8bh d8dh

voiceless p8ph t8th

.s a whole, the %lottalic theory see!s rather progressi"e and fits the co!!on laws of phonology better than the traditional one. *ut it will surely ta0e !uch ti!e for the linguistic co!!unity to brush the things up and to reconsider the whole structure of Indo-European consonantis! and the phonetic processes in "arious IE languages. <owadays it is possible to reconstruct the roto-IndoEuropean phonetics, but all e4isting tongues of the fa!ily ha"e had their phonetic syste!s changed greatly through centuries. E"en the !ost archaic dialects spo0en today in Europe and .sia ha"e gone far fro! the original state of phonetics. In general, the phonetic syste! of the roto-Indo-European language see!s far !ore co!plicated than its reflections in !odern tongues of the fa!ily/ the trend of si!plification which restructured fully the "ery syste! of the Indo-European language influenced phonetics as well.

9eference: 1 0omhard$ A ' An outline of the historical phonology of !ndo) *uropean 0ulletin !nternational de 1ocumentation 2inguisti3ue$ 4# 19"5 # 0rugmann$ 5 5urze vergleichende 6rammati- der indogermanischen &prachen 0erlin)2eipzig$ 19## ( 6am-relidze T $ !vanov 7 The !ndo)*uropean 2anguage and !ndo) *uropeans Tbilisi$ 19+, , 8opper$ / 9 6lottalized and murmured occlusives in !ndo)*uropean An international 9ornal of 2inguistics$ v " 19"( 5 5urylowicz$ 9 !ndogermanische 6rammati- 8eidelberg$ 19:+ : 2indeman$ ; !ntroduction to the 2aryngeal Theory <.ford$ 19+1 " =eillet$ A !ntroduction to the >omparative &tudies of !ndo)*uropean 2anguages =oscow$ 19(+ + &zemerenyi$ < A >omparative 6rammar of !ndo)*uropean 2anguages =oscow$ 19+: 9 /edersen$ 8 1ie gemeinindoeuropaischen und die vorindoeuropaischen 7erschusslaute 5openhagen$ 1951 1? /o-orny 9 $ !ndogermanisches *tymologisches @oerterbuch$ 0ern ) =uenchen$ 1959