Двухчастная модель бореальных смычных

Двухчастная модель бореальных смычных

Сообщение Максим Борозенец 13 апр 2014, 11:51

М.Н. Борозенец "Двухчастная модель бореальных смычных".

Моя гипотеза предполагает два изначальных ряда согласных для бореального праязыка:

X-ряд / Задний ряд. Артикулированные (придыхательные) плозивы, следующие парадигме сибилянта Х (согласный ларингал, среднее между германским H и грекославянским Х). Произносилось как русское Х в глухих позициях, и как украинское фрикативное Г в звонких.

S-ряд / Передний ряд. Неартикулированные плозивы, следующие парадигме сибилянта S. Различие глухих и звонких - чисто позиционное, но ближе к глухим. То есть S произносилось как С и З в зависимости от прилегающих фонем.

Отсюда решение проблемы количества рядов гуттуралов. В бореальном еще не было K, Ky, Kw, a только К, которая автоматически палатализовалась и лабиолизовалась в позиционной зависимости от других фонем.

Распад бореального праязыка начинается с закрепления корневых фонем в процессе словобразования, что влечет за собой усложнение двойной XS-системы в различные комбинации - четырехсложную (санскрит), с последующим упрощением в трехсложную (германский), и далее в двусложную (русский). Возможно, некоторые диалекты никогда не приобретали четырехчастную систему, так как трехсложная представляется доминирующей. Возможно, некоторые диалекты ИЕ типа славянских сразу перешли от двухчастной бореальной модели к двухчастной позднеиндоевропейской. Они удалили из Х-ряда придыхание и закрепили за ним артикуляцию звонкости, тогда как S-ряд образовал глухие согласные.

Двухчастная модель смычных типологически соответствует двухчастному делению щелевых (s, x), носовых (m, n), плавных (r, l) и полугласных (y, w).
Ex Borea Lux! - Из Севера Свет!
Аватара пользователя
Максим Борозенец
Администратор
 
Сообщений: 3429
Зарегистрирован: 30 окт 2009, 23:45
Откуда: Дания, Копенгаген

Re: Двухчастная модель бореальных смычных

Сообщение Александр Волынский 13 апр 2014, 14:00

При звукосинтезации используют уже заданные форманты т е наборы частот для каждой фонемы. Интересно проследить пропорции. Вот скажем как выглядят в оцифровке гласные.
Изображение
אור לגויים свет народам
Аватара пользователя
Александр Волынский

 
Сообщений: 9162
Зарегистрирован: 30 мар 2010, 22:06
Откуда: Афула, долина Армагеддона, Израиль

Re: Двухчастная модель бореальных смычных

Сообщение Максим Борозенец 13 апр 2014, 14:48

Да, интересно, хотя это уже не особо в моей компетенции. Вообще, даже между бемолем и диезом можно синтезировать какие угодно звуки, но не все они присутствуют в том или ином языке.

Полагаю, что позиционное положение определяло и частоту звуков.
Возьмем к примеру К:
KXy - приблизительно как "кхьй", откуда в конце концов сатэмант Ч
К - просто К(а)
КХw - типа как "кхъв", откуда в конце концов кентумант Q

И это уровень фонологии. А морфология развивается весьма похоже на семитские языки - с позиционными чередованиями фонем корня и суффиксов. Ударение и долгота гласного управляет морфемой, и определяет перепады частот.
Ex Borea Lux! - Из Севера Свет!
Аватара пользователя
Максим Борозенец
Администратор
 
Сообщений: 3429
Зарегистрирован: 30 окт 2009, 23:45
Откуда: Дания, Копенгаген

Re: Двухчастная модель бореальных смычных

Сообщение Александр Волынский 13 апр 2014, 15:21

Между прочим ударения и долгота в ИЕ языках говорят о существовании северного ядра из которого шли волны на юг, если верить Дыбо.
אור לגויים свет народам
Аватара пользователя
Александр Волынский

 
Сообщений: 9162
Зарегистрирован: 30 мар 2010, 22:06
Откуда: Афула, долина Армагеддона, Израиль

Re: Двухчастная модель бореальных смычных

Сообщение Максим Борозенец 13 апр 2014, 15:47

Александр Волынский писал(а):Между прочим ударения и долгота в ИЕ языках говорят о существовании северного ядра из которого шли волны на юг, если верить Дыбо.

Совершенно верно. Это северное ядро и есть бореальный ствол.
Все гласные современных индоевропейских языков так или иначе происходят из ларингалов.
Ex Borea Lux! - Из Севера Свет!
Аватара пользователя
Максим Борозенец
Администратор
 
Сообщений: 3429
Зарегистрирован: 30 окт 2009, 23:45
Откуда: Дания, Копенгаген

Re: Двухчастная модель бореальных смычных

Сообщение Максим Борозенец 16 апр 2014, 10:12

В индоевропеистике начинает преобладать двухрядная система задненебных, что подтверждает мою бореальную теорию. Авторы нижеприведенной статьи уверены, что палаталы образовались сугубо в позиционной зависимости, и закрепились потом типологически. Я считаю, что эпохой раньше то же самое случилось и с лабиовелярами.


THE THREE-DORSAL THEORY

PIE phonetic reconstruction is tied to the past: acceptance of three series of velars in PIE is still widespread today. We followed the reconstruction of ‘palatovelars’, according to general authority and convention, but we have changed
minds since the first edition of this grammar. Direct comparison in early IE studies, informed by the centum-satem isogloss, yielded the reconstruction of three rows of dorsal consonants in Late Indo-European by Bezzenberger (Die indogermanischer Gutturalreihen, 1890), a theory which became classic after Brugmann included it in the 2nd Edition of his Grundriss. It was based on vocabulary comparison: so e.g. from PIE *kmtóm ‘hundred’, there are so-called satem (cf. O.Ind. śatám, Av. satəm, Lith. šimtas, O.C.S. sto) and centum languages (cf. Gk. -katón, Lat. centum, Goth. hund, O.Ir. cet).

The palatovelars *kj, *gj, and *gjh were supposedly [k]- or [g]-like sounds which underwent a characteristic phonetic change in the satemised languages – three original “velar rows” had then become two in all Indo-European dialects attested. After that original belief, then, the centum group of languages merged the palatovelars *kj, *gj, and *gjh with the plain velars *k, *g, and *gh, while the satem group of languages merged the labiovelars *kw, *gw, and *gwh with the plain velars *k,*g, and *gh.

The reasoning for reconstructing three series was very simple: an easy and straightforward solution for the parent PIE language must be that it had all three rows found in the proto-languages, which would have merged into two rows depending on their dialectal (centum vs. satem) situation – even if no single IE dialect shows three series of velars. Also, for a long time this division was identified with an old dialectal division within IE, especially because both groups
appeared not to overlap geographically: the centum branches were to the west of satem languages. Such an initial answer should be considered unsound today, at least as a starting-point to obtain a better explanation for this ‘phonological puzzle’ (Bernabé).

Many Indo-Europeanists still keep a distinction of three distinct series of velars for Late Indo-European (and also for Indo-Hittite), although research tend to show that the palatovelar series were a late phonetic development of certain satem dialects, later extended to others. This belief was originally formulated by Antoine Meillet (De quelques difficulties de la théorie des gutturals indoeuropéennes, 1893), and has been followed by linguists like Hirt (Zur Lösung der Gutturalfrage im Indogermanischen, 1899; Indogermanische Grammatik, BD III, Das Nomen 1927), Lehmann (Proto-Indo-European Phonology, 1952), Georgiev (Introduzione allo studio delle lingue indoeuropee, 1966), Bernabé (“Aportaciones al studio fonológico de las guturales indoeuropeas”, Em. 39, 1971), Steensland (Die Distribution der urindogermanischen sogenannten Guttrale, 1973), Miller (“Pure velars and palatals in Indo-European: a rejoinder to Magnusson”, Linguistics 178, 1976), Allen (“The PIE velar series: Neogrammarian and other solutions in the light of attested parallels”, TPhS, 1978), Kortlandt (“H2 and oH2”, LPosn, 1980), Shields (“A new look at the centum/satem Isogloss”, KZ 95, 1981), etc.

NOTE. There is a general trend to reconstruct labiovelars and plain velars, so that the hypothesis of two series of velars is usually identified with this theory. Among those who support two series of velars there is, however, a minority who consider the labiovelars a secondary development from the pure velars, and reconstruct only velars and palatovelars (Kuryłowicz), already criticised by Bernabé, Steensland, Miller and Allen. Still less acceptance had the proposal to reconstruct only a labiovelar and a palatal series (Magnusson).

Arguments in favour of only two series of velars include:

1. In most circumstances palatovelars appear to be allophones resulting from the neutralisation of the other two series in particular phonetic circumstances. Their dialectal articulation was probably constrained, either to an especial phonetic environment (as Romance evolution of Latin k before e and i), either to the analogy of alternating phonetic forms.
NOTE. However, it is difficult to pinpoint exactly what the circumstances of the allophony are, although it is generally accepted that neutralisation occurred after s and u, and often before r or a; also apparently before m and n in some Baltic dialects. The original allophonic distinction was disturbed when the labiovelars were merged with the plain velars. This produced a new phonemic distinction between palatal and plain velars, with an unpredictable alternation between palatal and plain in related forms of some roots (those from original plain velars) but not others (those from original labiovelars). Subsequent analogical processes generalised either the plain or palatal consonant in all forms of a particular root. Those roots where the plain consonant was generalised are those traditionally reconstructed as having plain velars in the parent language, in contrast to palatovelars.

2. The reconstructed palatovelars and plain velars appear mostly in complementary distributions, what supports their explanation as allophones of the same phonemes. Meillet (Introduction à l’étude comparative des langues indoeuropéennes, 1903) established the contexts in which there are only velars: before a, r, and after s, u; while Georgiev (1966) clarified that the palatalisation of velars had been produced before e, i, j, and before liquid or nasal or w + e, i, offering statistical data supporting his conclusions. The presence of palatalised velar before o is then produced because of analogy with roots in which (due to the ablaut) the velar phoneme is found before e and o, so the alternation *kje/*ko would be levelled as *kje/*kjo.

3. There is residual evidence of various sorts in satem languages of a former distinction between velar and labiovelar consonants:
• In Sanskrit and Balto-Slavic, in some environments, resonants become iR after plain velars but uR after labiovelars.
• In Armenian, some linguists assert that kw is distinguishable from k before front vowels.
• In Albanian, some linguists assert that kw and gw are distinguishable from k and g before front vowels.
NOTE. This evidence shows that the labiovelar series was distinct from the plain velar series in LIE, and could not have been a secondary development in the centum languages. However, it says nothing about the palatovelar vs. plain velar series. When this debate initially arose, the concept of a phoneme and its historical emergence was not clearly understood, however, and as a result it was often claimed (and sometimes is still claimed) that evidence of three-way velar distinction in the history of a particular IE language indicates that this distinction must be reconstructed for the parent language. This is theoretically unsound, as it overlooks the possibility of a secondary origin for a distinction.

4. The palatovelar hypothesis would support an evolution kj → k of centum dialects, i.e. a move of palatovelars to back consonants, what is clearly against the general tendency of velars to move forward its articulation and palatalise in these environments. A trend of this kind is unparallelled and therefore typologically a priori unlikely (although not impossible), and needs that other assumptions be made.

5. The plain velar series is statistically rarer than the other two in a PIE lexicon reconstructed with three series; it appears in words entirely absent from affixes, and most of them are of a phonetic shape that could have inhibited palatalisation.
NOTE. Common examples are:
*yug-óm ‘yoke’: Hitt. iukan, Gk. zdugón, Skt. yugá-, Lat. iugum, O.C.S. igo, Goth. juk.
*ghosti- ‘guest, stranger’: Lat. hostis, Goth. gasts, O.C.S. gostĭ.
“The paradigm of the word for ‘yoke’ could have shown a palatalizing environment only in the vocative *yug-e, which is unlikely ever to have been in common usage, and the word for ‘stranger’ ghosti- only ever appears with the vocalism o”. (Clackson 2007).

6. Alternations between plain velars and palatals are common in a number of roots across different satem languages, where the same root appears with a palatal in some languages but a plain velar in others.
NOTE. This is consistent with the analogical generalisation of one or another consonant in an originally alternating paradigm, but difficult to explain otherwise:
*ak-/ok- ‘sharp’, cf. Lith. akúotas, O.C.S. ostrŭ, O.Ind. asrís, Arm. aseln, but Lith. asrùs.
*akmon- ‘stone’, cf. Lith. akmuõ, O.C.S. kamy, O.Ind. áśma, but Lith. âsmens.
*keu- ‘shine’, cf. Lith. kiáune, Russ. kuna, O.Ind. svas, Arm. sukh.
*bhleg- ‘shine’, cf. O.Ind. bhárgas, Lith. balgans, O.C.S. blagŭ, but Ltv. blâzt.
*gherdh- ‘enclose’, O.Ind. gṛhá, Av. gərəda, Lith. gardas, O.C.S. gradu, Lith. zardas, Ltv. zârdas.
*swekros ‘father-in-law’, cf. O.Sla. svekry, O.Ind. śvaśru.
*peku- ‘stock animal’; cf. O.Lith. pẽkus, Skt. paśu-, Av. pasu-.
*kleus- ‘hear’; cf. Skt. śrus, O.C.S. slušatĭ, Lith. kláusiu.

A rather weak argument in favour of palatovelars rejecting these finds is found in Clackson (2007): “Such forms could be taken to reflect the fact that Baltic is geographically peripheral to the satem languages and consequently did not participate in the palatalization to the same degree as other languages”.

7. There are different pairs of satemised and non-satemised velars found within the same language.
NOTE. The old argument proposed by Brugmann (and later copied by many dictionaries) about “centum loans” is not tenable today. For more on this, see Szemerény (1978, review from Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza 1995-1998), Mayrhofer (“Das Guttrualproblem un das indogermanische Wort für Hase”, Studien zu indogermanische Grundsprache, 1952), Bernabé (1971). Examples include:
*selg- ‘throw’, cf. O.Ind. sṛjáti, sargas
*kau/keu- ‘shout’, cf. Lith. kaukti, O.C.S. kujati, Russ. sova (as Gk. kauax); O.Ind. kauti, suka-.
*kleu- ‘hear’, Lith. klausýti, slove, O.C.S. slovo; O.Ind. karnas, sruti, srósati, śrnóti, sravas.
*leuk-, O.Ind. rokás, ruśant-.

8. The number and periods of satemisation trends reconstructed for the different branches are not coincident.
NOTE. So for example Old Indian shows two stages,
PIE *k → O.Ind. s
PIE *kwe, *kwi → O.Ind. ke, ki; PIE *ske, *ski > O.Ind. c (cf. cim, candra, etc.)
In Slavic, three stages are found,
PIE *k→s
PIE *kwe, *kwi→č (čto, čelobek)
PIE *kwoi→*koi→*ke gives ts (as Sla. tsená)

9. In most attested languages which present aspirates as a result of the so-called palatovelars, the palatalisation of other phonemes is also attested (e.g. palatalisation of labiovelars before e, i), what may indicate that there is an old trend to palatalise all possible sounds, of which the palatalisation of velars is the oldest attested result.
NOTE. It is generally believed that satemisation could have started as a late dialectal ‘wave’, which eventually affected almost all PIE dialectal groups. The origin is probably to be found in velars followed by e, i, even though alternating forms like *gen/gon caused natural analogycal corrections within each dialect, which obscures still more the original situation. Thus, non-satemised forms in so-called satem languages would be non-satemised remains of the original situation, just as Spanish has feliz and not ˟heliz, or fácil and not ˟hácil, or French facile and nature, and not ˟fêle or ˟nûre as one should expect from its phonetic evolution.

10. The existence of satem languages like Armenian in the Balkans, a centum territory, and the presence of Tocharian, a centum dialect, in Central Asia, being probably a northern IE dialect.
NOTE. The traditional explanation of a three-way dorsal split requires that all centum languages share a common innovation that eliminated the palatovelar series, due to the a priori unlikely move of palatovelars to back consonants (see above). Unlike for the satem languages, however, there is no evidence of any areal connection among the centum languages, and in fact there is evidence against such a connection – the centum languages are geographically noncontiguous. Furthermore, if such an areal innovation happened, we would expect to see some dialect differences in its implementation (cf. the above differences between Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian), and residual evidence of a distinct palatalised series. In fact, however, neither type of evidence exists, suggesting that there was never a palatovelar series in the centum languages. (Evidence does exist for a distinct labiovelar series in the satem languages, though; see above.)

11. A system of two gutturals, velars and labiovelars, is a linguistic anomaly, isolated in the IE occlusive subsystem – there are no parallel oppositions bw-b, pwp, tw-t, dw-d, etc. Only one feature, their pronunciation with an accompanying rounding of the lips, helps distinguish them from each other. Such a system has been attested in some older IE languages. A system of three gutturals – palatovelars, velars and labiovelars –, with a threefold distinction isolated in the occlusive system, is still less likely.
NOTE. In the two-dorsal system, labiovelars turn velars before -u, and there are some neutralisation positions which help identify labiovelars and velars; also, in some contexts (e.g. before -i, -e) velars tend to move forward its articulation and eventually palatalise.
Both trends led eventually to centum and satem dialectalisation.
Those who support the model of the threefold distinction in PIE cite evidence from Albanian (Pedersen) and Armenian (Pisani), that they seem to treat plain velars differently from the labiovelars in at least some circumstances, as well as the fact that Luwian could have had distinct reflexes of all three series.
NOTE 1. It is disputed whether Albanian shows remains of two or three series (cf. Ölberg “Zwei oder drei Gutturaldreihen? Vom Albanischen aus gesehen” Scritti…Bonfante 1976; Kortlandt 1980; Pänzer “Ist das Französische eine Satem-Sprache? Zu den Palatalisierung im Ur-Indogermanischen und in den indogermanischen Einzelsprachen”, Festschrift für J. Hübschmidt, 1982), although the fact that only the worst and one of the most recently attested (and neither isolated nor remote) IE dialect could be the only one to show some remains of the oldest phonetic system is indeed very unlikely. Clackson (2007), supporting the three series: “Albanian and Armenian are sometimes brought forward as examples of the maintenance of three separate dorsal series. However, Albanian and Armenian are both satem languages, and, since the *kj series has been palatalised in both, the existence of three separate series need not disprove the two-dorsal theory for PIE; they might merely show a failure to merge the unpalatalised velars with the original labio-velars.”
NOTE 2. Supporters of the palatovelars cite evidence from Luwian, an Anatolian language, which supposedly shows a three-way velar distinction *kj→z (probably [ts]); *k→k; *kw→ku (probably [kw]), as defended by Melchert (“Reflexes of *h3 in Anatolian”, Sprache 38 1987). So, the strongest argument in favour of the traditional three-way system is that the the distinction supposedly derived from Luwian findings must be reconstructed for the parent language. However, the underlying evidence “hinges upon especially difficult or vague or otherwise dubious etymologies” (see Sihler 1995); and, even if those findings are supported by other evidence in the future, it is obvious that Luwian might also have been in contact with satemisation trends of other Late IE dialects, that it might have
developed its own satemisation trend, or that maybe the whole system was remade within the Anatolian branch. Clackson (2007), supporting the three series, states: “This is strong independent evidence for three separate dorsal series, but the number of examples in support of the change is small, and we still have a far from perfect understanding of many aspects of Anatolian historical phonology.”

Also, one of the most difficult problems which subsists in the interpretation of the satemisation as a phonetic wave is that, even though in most cases the variation *kj/k may be attributed either to a phonetic environment or to the
analogy of alternating apophonic forms, there are some cases in which neither one nor the other may be applied, i.e. it is possible to find words with velars in the same environments as words with palatals.
NOTE. Compare for example *okjtō(u), eight, which presents k before an occlusive in a form which shows no change (to suppose a syncope of an older *okjitō, as does Szemerényi, is an explanation ad hoc). Other examples in which the palatalisation cannot be explained by the next phoneme nor by analogy are *swekru- ‘husband’s mother’, *akmōn ‘stone’, *peku ‘cattle’, which are among those not shared by all satem languages. Such unexplained exceptions, however, are not sufficient to consider the existence of a third row of ‘later palatalised’ velars (see Bernabé 1971; Cheng & Wang “Sound change: actuation and implementation”, Lg. 51, 1975), although there are still scholars who come back to the support of the hypothesis of three velars. So e.g. Tischler 1990 (reviewed in Meier-Brügger 2003): “The centum-satem isogloss is not to be equated with a division of Indo-European, but rather represents simply one isogloss among many…examples of ‘centum-like aspects’ in satem languages and of ‘satem-like aspects’ in centum languages that may be evaluated as relics of the original three-part plosive system, which otherwise was reduced everywhere to a two-part system.”

Newer trends to support the old assumptions include e.g. Huld (1997, reviewed in Clackson 2007), in which the old palatal *kj is reconstructed as a true velar, and *k as a uvular stop, so that the problem of the a priori unlikely and unparallelled merger of palatal with velar in centum languages is theoretically solved. As it is clear from the development of the dorsal reconstruction, the theory that made the fewest assumptions was that an original Proto-Indo-European had two series of velars. These facts should have therefore shifted the burden of proof, already by the time Meillet (1893) rejected the proposal of three series; but the authority of Neogrammarians and well-established works of the last century, as well as traditional conventions, probably weighted (and still weight) more than reasons.
NOTE. More than half century ago we had already a similar opinion on the most reasonable reconstruction, that still today is not followed, as American Sanskritist Burrow (1955) shows: “The difficulty that arises from postulating a third series in the parent language, is that no more than two series (…) are found in any of the existing languages. In
view of this it is exceedingly doubtful whether three distinct series existed in Indo-European. The assumption of the third series has been a convenience for the theoreticians, but it is unlikely to correspond to historical fact. Furthermore, on examination, this assumption does not turn out to be as convenient as would be wished. While it accounts in a way for correspondences like the above which otherwise would appear irregular, it still leaves over a considerable number of forms in the satem-languages which do not fit into the framework (…) Examples of this kind are particularly common in the Balto-Slavonic languages (…). Clearly a theory which leaves almost as many irregularities as it clears away is not very soundly established, and since these cases have to be explained as examples of dialect mixture in early Indo-European, it would appear simplest to apply the same theory to the rest. The case for this is particularly strong when we remember that when false etymologies are removed, when allowance is made for suffix alternation, and when the possibility of loss of labialization in the vicinity of the vowel u is considered (e.g. kravíṣ-, ugrá-), not many examples remain for the foundation of the theory.”

Of course, we cannot (and we will probably never) actually know if there were two or three series of velars in LIE, or PIH, and because of that the comparative method should be preferred over gut intuition, historical authority, or convention, obstacles to the progress in a dynamic field like IE studies. As Adrados (2005) puts it with bitterness: “Indo-Europeanists keep working on a unitary and flat PIE, that of Brugmann’s reconstruction. A reconstruction prior to the decipherment of Hittite and the study of Anatolian! This is but other proof of the terrible conservatism that has seized the scientific discipline that is or must be Indo-European linguistics: it moves forward in the study of individual languages, but the general theory is paralised”.

http://dnghu.org/en/indo-european-language-grammar/
Ex Borea Lux! - Из Севера Свет!
Аватара пользователя
Максим Борозенец
Администратор
 
Сообщений: 3429
Зарегистрирован: 30 окт 2009, 23:45
Откуда: Дания, Копенгаген


Вернуться в Бореальный код


Кто сейчас на конференции

Сейчас этот форум просматривают: нет зарегистрированных пользователей и гости: 1

cron