The existence of these sounds was not suspected for quite some time, because Hittite and the Anatolian Languages are the only Indo-European languages where they ever survive in writing as phonemes in the records we have of those extinct languages. Most Philologists have accepted that laryngeals existed, because positing their existence simplifies some otherwise hard-to-explain sound changes that appear in the descendant languages of PIE.
There were three such laryngeals:
- ''h1'', the "neutral" laryngeal;
- ''h2'', the "a-colouring" laryngeal; and
- ''h3'', the "o-colouring" laryngeal
- h1'' was actually two separate sounds, due to inconsistent reflexes in Hittite. (He assumed that one was a glottal stop and the other a glottal fricative. See below.)
In Greek , between consonants and initially ''h1'' > ''e'', ''h2'' > ''a'', and ''h3'' > ''o''. In Indo-Iranian languages such as Sanskrit , each laryngeal becomes ''i'', and in all other Indo-European languages, each (non-initial) laryngeal becomes ''a''. This explains such observed phenomena as:
- PIE: ''---ph2tér''; Greek ''πατηρ''; Sanskrit ''pitá''; Latin ''pater'' (father)
- PIE: ''---ish1ros''; Greek '''ιερος'', Sanskrit (sacred)
- PIE: ''---dh3tos''; Greek ''δοτος'', Latin ''datus'' (given)
- e-'', ''h2'' coloured it to ''---a-'', and ''h3'' to ''---o-''. In Anatolian, however, ''h2'' was preserved, and ''h3'' was preserved in some positions. For example:
- PIE: ''---h2enti''; Hittite ''hanti''; Latin ''ante'' (before, against)
- PIE: ''---h3eui-''; Luwian ''hawi-''; Latin ''ovis'' (sheep)
The laryngeal theory has been posited as the best explanation of the otherwise mysterious appearance of ''h-'' in the Anatolian words, and the vowel difference between the Anatolian languages and most other Indo-European languages, such as Latin ''ovis'' = "sheep".
Further evidence of the laryngeals comes from Uralic (Finno-Ugric) languages. While Proto- Uralic was typologically and grammatically very different from PIE and thus genetically unrelated, some words reconstructed into Uralic 'proto-dialects' (such as Proto-Finno-Ugric, Proto-Finno-Permic etc.) have been borrowed from PIE-dialects (cf. Finnish ''nimi'' ← ''name'' and ''porsas'' ← ''pork''). After assuming that PIE laryngeals could have translated into guttural phonemes in the borrowing language, new loan words are being revealed in increasing numbers.
- /š/'' as in ''shoe'' becoming modern Finnic ''/h/'') in some younger ones. The velar plosive ''/k/'' is the third correspondence and the only one found word-initially, as is to be expected under relevant Uralic phonological limitations. Thus Finnish ''lehti'' (leaf, sheet) ← PIE ''---bhlh1-to'' (Uralic only reflects the last consonant in initial clusters) giving later Scandinavian 'blad' (blade, leaf, sheet), and Finnish ''kal-ja'' (beer) derived by suffix from ''---kale-'' ← PIE ''---h2alu-'' giving English ''ale'' and Scandinavian ''öl'' (beer).
- dheh1-'' → Proto-Germanic ''---do:n'' (to do), but this reconstruction contains the assumption that all Indo-European words in Uralic are borrowings, which assumption has not been criticized thoroughly. On the contrary, an Indo-Uralic etymology may be reconstructed. (See Kortlandt.)
- -eh2'', which was coloured by the laryngeal to ''
a'', which was then lengthened compensatorily after the loss of the laryngeal. This makes the feminine nouns and adjectives originally consonant stems rather than original Vowel Stems , and helps explain why they are inflected differently from other nouns that are true vowel stems.
Since the feminine gender is formed through a recognizable suffix, some scholars feel that it was a recent innovation. According to this view, early PIE had only two original Grammatical Gender s, Masculine , or animate, and Neuter , or inanimate.
The laryngeal theory also explains some Ablaut sequences that appear in many Indo-European roots, and makes them seem less arbitrary and more regular. For example, the observed sequences:
- ''ê/ô/ə'' is explained as ''eh1/oh1/h1'';
- ''â/ô/ə'' is explained as ''eh2/oh2/h2'';
- ''ô/ô/ə'' is explained as ''eh3/oh3/h3''
- h1'' is a glottal stop is still very widespread. A glottal stop would however be unlikely to be reflected as a fricative in Uralic borrowings, as appears to be the case, for example in the word ''lehti'' < ---''lešte'' <= PIE ''---bhlh1-to''. Furthermore, all three laryngeals pattern the same phonologically, in a way that is quite different from the PIE stops but similar to the (only) fricative "---s".
- h2'' (the "a-colouring" laryngeal) could have been a Pharyngeal Fricative . Pharyngeal fricatives (like the Arabic letter ح as in ''Muħammad'') often cause a-coloring in the Semitic languages (this occurs in Hebrew, for example). For this reason, the pharyngeal assumption is a strong one.
- h3'' was rounded (labialized) due to its o-coloring effects. It is often taken to be voiced based on the perfect form ''---pibh3-'' from the root ''---peh3''. Based on the analogy of Arabic, some linguists have assumed that ''---h3'' was also pharyngeal like Arabic ع ( Ayin , as in Arabic ''muعallim'' = "teacher"), although the assumption that it was velar is probably more common. (The reflexes in Uralic languages could be the same whether the original phonemes were velar or pharyngeal.)
|
