Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 96. kötet (1998-1999)

Tanulmányok - Dezső László: Typological Comparison of Root Structuring in Uralic and Early Indo-European. [Az uráli és korai indoeurópai tőstruktúrák tipológiai összevetése] 3

Typological Comparison of Root Structuring in Uralic and Early Indo-European 11 ship of the non-palatal labials, dentals and alveolars in the two proto-languages will be doser: PU 206: 179, PIE 1399 : 1069. In Indo-European the number of s (676) is between that ofp/b (623) and t/d (776), the situation is similar in Uralic: s, s (88) vs. p (109), / (77), t with interdental fricatives (99). In Uralic there was also the affricate c (24). One should be cautious when using thèse figures because in UEW only the Uralic etymons were counted, in Pokorny there is a considérable number of etymons which would not enter in the Indo-European layer according to the criteriaof UEW. From a typological point of view, the exact figures hâve no relevance. There are two observations to be considered. The first is the agreement between the figures of the two proto-languages which was evident from the présentation of data. The other is the importance of palatalization for the System of Uralic: dentals and sibilants hâve pairs / : t' (or affricate c), s : s and one can assume that also c originates from palatalization. However, the possible cacuminal feature of c needs clarification, considering also generál typology. In Indo-European k/g had palatal pairs which will undergo changes in the dialects. The basic part of the section will deal with a concrète analysis of the phonèmes; in the final section the diachronic aspect will be the focus and the question of palatalization in early Uralic will be examined. 2.2. On Stops and Sybilants In Uralic the stops are presented only by the voiceless p, t, k. The lack of voicing and aspiration indicate the unmarked character of stops (cf. Greenberg 1966: 24) and could be archaic (cf. Décsy 1988: 68). However, it may resuit from the simplification of a complex antécédent System, like the Tocharian stops which were preceded by the Proto-Indo-European system with features of „glottalized", „voiced", „aspirated", ail neutralized in Tocharian (cf. Gamkrelidze - Ivanov 1984: 49). Given that we hâve no reasons to assume a more complex System in Pre-Uralic, we should not consider this possibility. In Indo-European the stops could be glottalized: p, f, U (the first one is rare), voiceless with possible aspiration: p/ph, t/th, k/kh and voiced with possible aspiration: b/bh, d/dh, g/gh. (Our comments are based on Gamkrelidze - Ivanov 1984: 5-80). Since this system has marked features, one could question how it has been förmed. There seem to be two typologically plausible major routes: (1) glottalization of p, t, k, which implies some voicing (more precisely „voiced" has (-) value); (2) voicing and aspiration; their relationship could be twofold: (i) unvoiced, unaspirated p, t, k are complemented by aspirated allophones ph, th, kh, and then both groups became voiced, and resuit in two séries of phonèmes; or (ii) p, t, k had voiced allophones: b, d, g, which became phonèmes, and then both groups acquired aspirated allophones. Having no évidence to clarify the formation of the