... on PIE

... on Tower of Babel - a Classic (quora) · ... on PIE · Historic Linguistics as Viewed by a Creationist (Featuring Proto-Languages, on quora) - 8 questions + update · ... on Bread and Comparative Linguistics

Q

Why does reconstructed Proto-Indo-European seem so cumbersome to pronounce?
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-reconstructed-Proto-Indo-European-seem-so-cumbersome-to-pronounce/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

C on Q

It seems as if there are a lot of unusual phonemes and stranger and more consonant clusters than most modern IE languages have. Also, what do those subscript numbers mean?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I speak two langs, Latin and Germanic. In a few dialects.

Answered just now

H generally comes with subscript 1,2 or 3.

H₁ is the H which becomes (a Continental) E and was probably (an English / German) H.

H₂ becomes A and was presumably Ach-Laut.

H₃ becomes O and also voices some consonants beside it, was probably a voiced counterpart of Ach-Laut a little further back perhaps and with lip rounding.

Then there are b^h, d^h, g^h, g^h(w). Basically taken over from Sanskrit b^h, d^h, j^h, g^h.

Now, the unusual part is this : b^h, d^h, g^h, g^h(w) exist, which is rare outside India (Sanskrit + some Dravidic languages + some Indic languages later than Sanskrit) AND the three H sounds can form the core of a syllable, which is usually reserved for vowels which are voiced sounds.

Also, m and n, l and r exist in syllabic version, but this you can find, at least for r and l in Czech too : vlk meaning wolf and Brno being a city both have this. This means they are not really consonant clusters, since m, n, l, r in this context are functioning as vowels.

But I have only DEFINED the unusual traits of Proto-Indo-European. This is sth other than to EXPLAIN them as you asked me to do.

Now, PIE is reconstructed and this is how linguists finally agreed to reconstruct it. I just saw a version with only one laryngal (or two, counting voiceless and voiced), which was much closer to Hittite - by another linguist, proposing his reconstruction.

And one possible explanation why the reconstruction of a proto-language seems so odd (laryngals, b^h, d^h, g^h, g^h(w), m and n, l and r in syllabic version, all at the same time) may be in my view because the premiss behind the reconstruction, namely existence of a proto-language (like Latin is to the Romance languages) is the wrong explanation for Indo-European communalities. As it happens, that is my view.

pH₂tH₁r = pronounce pkht-hr … would you call your dad such a sound?