2016/12/07 by Jack Feuillet · 1 citation
Arts and Humanities · Psychology · #Linguistics and language evolution #Phonetics and Phonology Research #Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation #Linguistics #Nothing #Philosophy #Consonant #Theoretical linguistics #Morpheme #Historical linguistics #History #Vowel #Epistemology
paper · doi:10.13109/hisp.2016.129.1.39
openalex publication_date 2016/12/07 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/06/19
The reconstruction of the Indo-European phonological system has been a matter of discussion since the beginning of comparative linguistics, and one cannot say that a consensus has been reached in this domain. With the emergence of the laryngeal theory and Benveniste’s root theory, specialists are more and more inclined to reduce the number of primitive vowels, and some of them are not afraid to envisage a onevowel system. As it happens, nothing in the phonological system leads to such a reconstruction, except morphological factors based on alternations. This paper critically examines these hypotheses, which contradict the basic phonetic data, such as the vocalisation of laryngeals or their vocalic reflection. The ‘coloration’, which the laryngeals supposedly would bring about on the preceding as well as on the following vowels, is not attested in the Indo-European languages. Actually, the profusion of laryngeals in the reconstructed roots is partially a consequence of Benveniste’s theory, which does not accept initial vowels. It is necessary to break with this logic and to devise a much more common system with a single laryngeal and five short vowels. From another point of view, typological considerations lead to propose another pattern for the consonant system, in which the voiced aspirated occlusives are no more considered as primitive.